Reusable Grocery Bags

[Howard Hail]

My supermarkets offer a tiny discount if I use reusable grocery bags, and I
wish for the sake of old mother earth that I did, but I hate the cheap ones
like this:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41dXmUdidSL._SY300_.jpg

because they keep falling over, the handles always get tangled, they have
no form, they tear under major weight, and so on.

There are certainly expensive ones for sale, like this one

http://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/road-test-reusable-
bags-00000000010689/index.html

but it's $12 and I can't see spending $70+ on renewable bags in order to
have enough for a major shopping trip.

Is there any way to retrofit the standard bags with, uh, coathangers and
cardboard and chewing gum or something else easily obtainable to make them
better, stronger, faster? Something that will fold up compactly but also
open up neatly and hold its form? I think I have a glue gun somewhere if
that makes things easier, but any serious sewing is going to be out of the
question.

[Snidely]

On May 20, 10:18 am, Howard Hail <howartholh...@notmail.com> wrote:
> My supermarkets offer a tiny discount if I use reusable grocery bags, and I
> wish for the sake of old mother earth that I did, but I hate the cheap ones
> like this:
>
> http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41dXmUdidSL._SY300_.jpg
>
> because they keep falling over, the handles always get tangled, they have
> no form, they tear under major weight, and so on.

If that's the flimsy non-woven fabric type, then they are indeed
flimsy, and vulnerable to sharp edges.

> There are certainly expensive ones for sale, like this one
>

> http://www.realsimple.com/food-recipes/shopping-storing/road-test-reu...
> bags-00000000010689/index.html

I'll have to check that link later, at home and unwrapped.

>
> but it's $12 and I can't see spending $70+ on renewable bags in order to
> have enough for a major shopping trip.
>
> Is there any way to retrofit the standard bags with, uh, coathangers and
> cardboard and chewing gum or something else easily obtainable to make them
> better, stronger, faster?  Something that will fold up compactly but also
> open up neatly and hold its form?  I think I have a glue gun somewhere if
> that makes things easier, but any serious sewing is going to be out of the
> question.

I don't think it's worth doing more with the non-woven than doubling
them.

Getting a real canvas bag (as in washable) is attractive, but the ones
I'm using were freebies given away at a seminar as a book bag for
parts catalogs, and I haven't pungled up enough for the ones I've seen
at the fair.

But there is a middle ground. Many of the grocery stores (aka
supermarkets) have a heavier fabric-y plastic reusable bag, usually
with artwork (not just a logo) on it, for $2-$5, and these are pretty
sturdy. I use one as a gym bag, for instance.

You might also see what Ikea has for beach bags; I had a nice canvas
one that held about twice the groceries that the supermarket bags
could manage. Had, until I left it at a party.

/dps

[Mac]

Trader Joe's, Safeway, most building supply places, some
friends-of-the-library, and so forth around here (PNW) all have
relatively good re-usables fairly cheap, to say nothing of rice bags,
birdseed bags, and other re-purposed stuff.

>

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 20, 10:18 am, Howard Hail <howartholh...@notmail.com> wrote:

> My supermarkets offer a tiny discount if I use reusable grocery bags, and I
> wish for the sake of old mother earth that I did, but I hate the cheap ones
> like this:

Sigh...

Reusable grocery bags are a scam. Pure green-washing. Over a human
lifetime, disposable plastic has the smallest footprint. Do you count
the cost of remembering and lugging those reusable bags? Repairing/
replacing them? Washing them? (DO you wash them? Frequent source of
food borne illness if you don't, remember to include the rather
substantial costs of that...)

[rroger]

I use the store's disposable plastic bags. The only time that I use
paper bags are at the stores where their paper bags have *handles,
like Whole Foods, etc.

--
rr-*I like convenience-oger

[Hactar]

In article <XnsA1C687798...@94.75.214.39>,

Does the discount apply if you supply your own single-use bag, or does it
need to be reusable? What I'm thinking is that if the discount is worth
more than the purchase price, you could get your own paper bags.

12" x 7" x 17", no handle, $42 (about 8.4 cents each) in lots of 500:

http://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-9621/Retail-Bags-Paper/Kraft-Paper-Grocery-Bags-12-x-7-x-17-1-6-Barrel

http://tinyurl.com/k9ukrd9

The used bag doubles as a cat toy even if the bottom is soggy or ripped.

--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al

[Bob Dahl]

In article <XnsA1C687798...@94.75.214.39>,
Howard Hail <howart...@notmail.com> wrote:

...

>
> Is there any way to retrofit the standard bags with, uh, coathangers and
> cardboard and chewing gum or something else easily obtainable to make them
> better, stronger, faster? Something that will fold up compactly but also
> open up neatly and hold its form? I think I have a glue gun somewhere if
> that makes things easier, but any serious sewing is going to be out of the
> question.

Double a couple of paper bags. For extra strength, sometimes a plastic bag will
fit in between the 2 bags. Tape them together if you want. Just use doubled-over
duct or electricians tape...

They won't last forever, but 3 months to 2-3 YEARS is better than nothing. Oh,
DO Note the paper bags kinda suck for cold, wet items. That plastic bag liner
helps, though.

--
Bob Dahl
email address is dahlb02 at comcast.net

[BillTurlock]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:13:03 -0400, ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar)
wrote:

>
>
>The used bag doubles as a cat toy even if the bottom is soggy or ripped.

Soggy Bottom and Ripped is the name of my new band.

[Gus]

"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2df71dbc-d575-4f6e...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

---

I wouldn't dissuade people from reusable bags. It's not much trouble to
"lug" around or wash periodically. I don't feel good about plastic bags,
they stay around in the environment for a long time and see them flying
around as litter too often. The Aldi grocery store here charge 10 cents for
a paper bag and 3 cents for paper. I think bags should have a cost, so
people are reminded they aren't free and there is an environmental cost.

Kroger still has paper bags and I double them and put on the back of my bike
luggage carrier with bungee cords. Then I either reuse the bag or put
recyclables in it and it goes out with the recycle. Plastic bags are cheap
to make and can be useful, but plastic isn't really feasible to recycle so a
lot just ends up in landfills or flying around out in the environment or in
the oceans.

[rroger]

On May 20, 8:33 pm, "Gus" <gus.over...@geemail.com> wrote:
> "Shawn Wilson" <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:2df71dbc-d575-4f6e...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 20, 10:18 am, Howard Hail <howartholh...@notmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My supermarkets offer a tiny discount if I use reusable grocery bags, and
> > I
> > wish for the sake of old mother earth that I did, but I hate the cheap
> > ones
> > like this:
>
> Sigh...
>
> Reusable grocery bags are a scam.  Pure green-washing.  Over a human
> lifetime, disposable plastic has the smallest footprint.  Do you count
> the cost of remembering and lugging those reusable bags?  Repairing/
> replacing them?  Washing them?  (DO you wash them?  Frequent source of
> food borne illness if you don't, remember to include the rather
> substantial costs of that...)
>
> ---
>
> I wouldn't dissuade people from reusable bags.  It's not much trouble to
> "lug" around or wash periodically.  I don't feel good about plastic bags,
> they stay around in the environment for a long time and see them flying
> around as litter too often.
>
> The Aldi grocery store here charge 10 cents for a paper bag and 3 cents for paper.
>

Um, huh?

[Gus]

"rroger" <raus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9d99ae30-d383-4b74...@v14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

---

oopos, "...10 cents for a paper bag and 3 cents for a plastic bag."

How is that working out in LA, didn't they ban plastic bags?

[John Mc.]

I'm sort of with Shawn here. I have no use for the local markets'
re-usable bags, except one. We simply use the disposable plastic ones
then put them all in one of the re-useable bags and use that to take
them in to the local Meijer store which has bins for recycling the
plastic bags.

John Mc.

[Greg Goss]

"Gus" <gus.o...@geemail.com> wrote:

>I don't feel good about plastic bags,
>they stay around in the environment for a long time and see them flying
>around as litter too often.

They hang around a long time buried in dumps, but I'm not so sure that
they last in the sunlight.

I had a few things in three plastic bags in the trunk of my car since
about a year ago. When I was cleaning my car out for resale, none of
the pieces of the plastic bags were more than a couple of inches
across, and most of the plastic was no more than a quarter inch
across. The bags were basically powdered by a single year in the sun.

And a major pain to try to vacuum up.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[BillTurlock]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:52:22 -0700 (PDT), Snidely
<snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wal*Mart seems to have given about a million, maybe more, of the
non-woven woven-looking bags to the Salvation Army. Maybe even
zillions. Go to your local Sally Ann, buy something.

Go ahead, it'll help some poor drunk on his last legs, and you'll get
a pretty darn sturdy FREE non-woven woven-looking bag!

Or, ask me, I have lots.

[Mac]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:21:03 -0400, "John Mc." <jo...@tdcogre.com>
wrote:

>On 5/20/2013 3:03 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>> On May 20, 10:18 am, Howard Hail <howartholh...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>> My supermarkets offer a tiny discount if I use reusable grocery bags, and I
>>> wish for the sake of old mother earth that I did, but I hate the cheap ones
>>> like this:
>>
>>
>> Sigh...
>>
>> Reusable grocery bags are a scam. Pure green-washing.

Cite?

> Over a human
>> lifetime, disposable plastic has the smallest footprint. Do you count
>> the cost of remembering and lugging those reusable bags? Repairing/
>> replacing them? Washing them? (DO you wash them? Frequent source of
>> food borne illness if you don't, remember to include the rather
>> substantial costs of that...)

Again, cite?

Last I checked, if you actually use a fairly low-initial cost reusable
back 50-150 times, depending on area, it generally pays
back...everything, damn near, except exercise. All else equal, of
course, which it often ain't.

>I'm sort of with Shawn here.

Uhh, really? Seems more like you are getting on Are-Are's bandwagon,
and that's seldom a ggood tthing.

> I have no use for the local markets'
>re-usable bags, except one.

Which has nothing to do with the question of which is "better for the
enironment," whatever that may mean.

> We simply use the disposable plastic ones
>then put them all in one of the re-useable bags and use that to take
>them in to the local Meijer store which has bins for recycling the
>plastic bags.

....so, you have a seperate - reusable!!!! - bag that you use to cary
the used bags. Why not just designate a Judas Bag from among the
disposables, and fill it up with its brethren and cistern?

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 21, 7:03 am, Mac <anmcc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:

> >> Reusable grocery bags are a scam.  Pure green-washing.
>
> Cite?
>
> > Over a human
> >> lifetime, disposable plastic has the smallest footprint.  Do you count
> >> the cost of remembering and lugging those reusable bags?  Repairing/
> >> replacing them?  Washing them?  (DO you wash them?  Frequent source of
> >> food borne illness if you don't, remember to include the rather
> >> substantial costs of that...)
>
> Again, cite?
>
> Last I checked, if you actually use a fairly low-initial cost reusable
> back 50-150 times, depending on area, it generally pays
> back...everything, damn near, except exercise.  All else equal, of
> course, which it often ain't.

From Gus "3 cents for a plastic bag". $0.03 x 50 = $1.50. $0.03 x
150 = $4.50.

So, right there only the very cheapest (< $4.50) reusable bags are in
contention at all. And I frankly doubt they have the durability to
last for 150 uses.

Add in the cost of remembering and lugging the damn things. Say 3
seconds of effort per bag per shopping trip (or a 1 minute "Oh, I
forget the bag" detour to get it every 20 trips). Valuing the average
person's time at $12/hr (quite low, $20+ would be more accurate),
that's an additional cost of 3*150 = 450 seconds = 7 1/2 minutes =
$1.50 per reusable bag. Amortized across 150 trips that's 1 cent per
each. (Wow! how convenient. It's like the problem was specifically
set up to work out evenly...).

Folding, shaking out, storing after your trip- say another 3 seconds
per bag. Note, if you keep them in your car to save the effort of
getting them before your trip you have the additional effort of moving
them there from your kitchen after your trip...

So, now your 150 use reusable bag has to cost less than $1.50 to be
more efficient than plastic. Note- not cost to YOU, cost to get TO
you. 'Free bags' they 'just give away' still cost the provider money
because they consume valuable resources and the consumption of
resources is the issue here.


Washing... Say $1.00 per load (all in- water, electricity, heat,
detergent), and that you can do 20 bags per load = 5 cents per bag per
washing. Wash them every 5 trips (as in, say, once a month) and...
The bag would have to be FREE to be more efficient than plastic. I
don't care how far and how long you search the net, reusable bags will
use more than ZERO resources to produce...

Don't wash them? Buy organic vegetables grown in natural fertilizer?
Pesticide free? You can calculate the expected amortized cost of
those food borne illnesses and insectile parasites yourself... Don't
forget lost wages. Lose 1 day of work and that's 8hrs x $12/hr = $96
= 3200 plastic bags.

Yes, disposable IS more efficient. And, really, economics is enormous
fun...

QED.

Waste management? Landfill is literally dirt cheap. And old shopping
bags will be landfilled too.

Only...

Plastic bags can be (and are) recycled into other plastic things.
Can't recycle canvas. And NOTHING biodegrades in a landfill (no
oxygen).

[Gus]

"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c30f4003-d4b5-477e...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

---

Plastic is cheaper, but not environmentally friendly. That isn't being
taken into account... Recycling plastic isn't very economical.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 21, 3:14 pm, "Gus" <gus.over...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Plastic is cheaper, but not environmentally friendly.  That isn't being
> taken into account...

There is nothing environmentally unfriendly about plastic that isn't
environmentally unfriendly about petroleum. Lateral move there.
"Well, petroleum's underground...". So's plastic, in a landfill.

>  Recycling plastic isn't very economical.

Well, 90% of recycling is just more pointless greenwashing, yes.
That's another issue. But plastic CAN be recycled, and canvas CANNOT.

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 05/20/2013 08:21 PM, John Mc. wrote:
>
> I'm sort of with Shawn here. I have no use for the local markets'
> re-usable bags, except one.

I got some reusable ones for free, and have been using them trouble free
for years. If I forget then or a buy more stuff than will fit in two
reusable backs, I get plastic. Or if I ask them to pack something that
might get icky separately.

> We simply use the disposable plastic ones
> then put them all in one of the re-useable bags and use that to take
> them in to the local Meijer store which has bins for recycling the
> plastic bags.

I use the plastic bags to remove from my abode the remains of the same
things I used them to bring into my abode. It does seem to balance
(before I used the reusable ones, it was out of balance).

Xho

[Mac]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 18:14:22 -0400, "Gus" <gus.o...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c30f4003-d4b5-477e...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>On May 21, 7:03 am, Mac <anmcc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:
>
>> >> Reusable grocery bags are a scam. Pure green-washing.
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>> > Over a human
>> >> lifetime, disposable plastic has the smallest footprint. Do you count
>> >> the cost of remembering and lugging those reusable bags? Repairing/
>> >> replacing them? Washing them? (DO you wash them? Frequent source of
>> >> food borne illness if you don't, remember to include the rather
>> >> substantial costs of that...)
>>
>> Again, cite?
>>
>> Last I checked, if you actually use a fairly low-initial cost reusable
>> back 50-150 times, depending on area, it generally pays
>> back...everything, damn near, except exercise. All else equal, of
>> course, which it often ain't.
>
>
>From Gus

Now, there's an authoritative cite. "Gus." Better than "OED," that
is.

>"3 cents for a plastic bag". $0.03 x 50 = $1.50. $0.03 x
>150 = $4.50.

No, Shawn. You started out claiming that the bag's "footprint" is
less; that's a term of art of another discipline. So is
"greenwashing."

Now, if you's started out saying "the impact of grocery bags on the
economy and the environment is minimal compared with the impact of
product choices for what's in the bag, and a lot of this bagophilia is
really just showing off or advertising" I suspect I would agree with
you.

Back to your figures for a minute, if we are going to go by
individual economics, for me, the figure would be "5-10 cents,
depending." See, because a good reusable bag mimics a proper paper
bag, and they run 8-10 cents, not 3. (For people who like formless
bags that crush goods and dig into the hand, ripstop nylon bags that
mimic light plastic disposables are available, but why get the worst
of both worlds?)

(Students of the art of BS detection will recall the magisterial "How
to Lie With Statistics," which gives an example of statistics,
seemingly valid, but actually plucked from the air, also by an
economist of sorts. Whatever you want to say against Marx, he was
actually published, unlike Monks here.)

>
>So, right there only the very cheapest (< $4.50) reusable bags are in
>contention at all. And I frankly doubt they have the durability to
>last for 150 uses.

But, as usual, you would be wrong. The microban bags Safeway and
Win-Dixie, among others, sell, last at least 200 uses, from my
personal experience, and they cost the consumer between 1 and 2
dollars. (5 bucks the pack of 5, two bucks apiece.) Checking a
shipping supplier, U-Line, I see that they're able to put them out at
about $1.60 in moderate quantity to all comers, which suggests that
this is not a subsidized price.

The durability is also easy enough to check, the same material is used
for bulktainers bags and dumpster bags, albeit without the
antibacterial coating. Those bulktainers, btw, are usually used for
food. Funny, that.

>Add in the cost of remembering and lugging the damn things. Say 3
>seconds of effort per bag per shopping trip (or a 1 minute "Oh, I
>forget the bag" detour to get it every 20 trips). Valuing the average
>person's time at $12/hr (quite low, $20+ would be more accurate),

Now, now, Shawn. Real economists could tell you that people's time
value varies with activity, as shown by revealed preferences. Many
of us value our transportation time well below minimum wage for
regular commuting, although that is further complicated by the
different value assigned to sunk costs, future costs, and immediate
costs. You should find a good school to teach you this stuff. Well,
that, or try for a refund.

Given how the loonier wing of the greenies dote on showing off their
environmentalicism, they'd probably pay for the privilege, never mind
count the cost of it.

Beyond that, though, the particular bags in question fold themselves,
generally, when dropped empty. Testing suggests a second a piece is a
better estimate. You have to make sure you snatch the right number
from the air, Shawn.

>that's an additional cost of 3*150 = 450 seconds = 7 1/2 minutes =
>$1.50 per reusable bag. Amortized across 150 trips that's 1 cent per
>each. (Wow! how convenient. It's like the problem was specifically
>set up to work out evenly...)

Given your love of cribbed "facts," why should a cribbed illustration
be surprising?

>Folding, shaking out, storing after your trip- say another 3 seconds
>per bag. Note, if you keep them in your car to save the effort of
>getting them before your trip you have the additional effort of moving
>them there from your kitchen after your trip...

While on planet earth, the usual approach is to place them in that
designated "stuff going elsewhere" spot that every house somehow
acquires, and taking it when you are going there next time, no special
trip required. Grab the bags and the stuff for the cleaner, and the
library returns, all at once.

>So, now your 150 use reusable bag has to cost less than $1.50 to be
>more efficient than plastic. Note- not cost to YOU, cost to get TO
>you. 'Free bags' they 'just give away' still cost the provider money
>because they consume valuable resources and the consumption of
>resources is the issue here.

Glad to see you've finally conceded that advertising is a simple drag
on the economy, Shawn.

>Washing... Say $1.00 per load (all in- water, electricity, heat,
>detergent), and that you can do 20 bags per load = 5 cents per bag per
>washing.

Meanwhile, on planet earth, an intelligent consumer designates one or
two bags - often , oddly, insulated ones, for the stuff likely to have
sanitation issues, and avoids the whole mess for the rest of them.

This, of course ignores the Magic Numbers Snatched From the Air- only
20 bags? Did the washer come paired with an easy-bake oven?

>Wash them every 5 trips (as in, say, once a month) and...
>The bag would have to be FREE to be more efficient than plastic. I
>don't care how far and how long you search the net, reusable bags will
>use more than ZERO resources to produce...
>
>Don't wash them? Buy organic vegetables grown in natural fertilizer?
>Pesticide free? You can calculate the expected amortized cost of
>those food borne illnesses and insectile parasites yourself...

Composting eliminates most pathogens; the usual source of them is food
handling, an equal risk for any produce. BTW, the actual back-end of
food-moving switched to returnables about 15 years ago,
mostly....'cause they're cheaper. Many of those veggies made their
way, right up until final consumer packaging, in returnables. Stop
questioning the Market.

>Don't
>forget lost wages. Lose 1 day of work and that's 8hrs x $12/hr = $96.00
>= 3200 plastic bags.

The only research suggesting a real risk from re-usables was funded
by...the disposable bag industry. The only incident, so far,
involved norovirus and a bunch of kids eating cooking out of the
(reusable) bag. Yup, the bag's the most likely suspect, isn't it?
Bunch a kids pawing through the cookies aren't even worth considering.

>Yes, disposable IS more efficient.

Then why has industry so often abandoned them?

> And, really, economics is enormous
>fun...

It has to be for you, doesn't it? Not much choice there, eh?

>QED

IYD.

>Waste management? Landfill is literally dirt cheap.

...which is to say, around here, maybe 20 thousand an acre, which is
part of why it has to go by train to the other side of the mountains.
All my trash takes a 300 mile train ride.

>And old shopping bags will be landfilled too.
>
>Only...
>
>Plastic bags can be (and are) recycled into other plastic things.

Now, that, sometimes -is- greenwashing.

>Can't recycle canvas.

Of course you can. Well, you can't, you are on record as disbelieving
in the scrap paper market, but, say paper makers, insulation
manufacturers rayon spinners, explosives manufacturers, well, we
could be here all day. Scarp cotton, linen, and hemp is a commodity.
Low value, but if you get enough of it together, the way, say,
Goodwill, St. Vinny's, or the Sally can, you can sell it for re-use.

It also composts nicely.

> And NOTHING biodegrades in a landfill (no
>oxygen).

...which is why there's a 40 Meg powerplant working off dump gas in
LA, and why you could see the flare-offs from the east of DeKalb back
when you pretended to learn econ. Dump gas is quite real.

(In real life, your words would be rendered "in some landfills
aerobic degradation is minimized by limited oxygen.")

All of this, btw, costs money, too, of course. How many grocery bags
in a gallon?

[Mac]

That's not their natural state, though; many bags are designed to
degrade, since it lets them work better in composting, and keeps
litter from hanging around forever. UV degradation is sometimes a
bug, and sometimes a feature.

[Greg Goss]

Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:12:22 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

[plastic grocery bags]

>>d a long time buried in dumps, but I'm not so sure that
>>they last in the sunlight.
>>
>>I had a few things in three plastic bags in the trunk of my car since
>>about a year ago. When I was cleaning my car out for resale, none of
>>the pieces of the plastic bags were more than a couple of inches
>>across, and most of the plastic was no more than a quarter inch
>>across. The bags were basically powdered by a single year in the sun.
>>
>>And a major pain to try to vacuum up.
>
>That's not their natural state, though; many bags are designed to
>degrade, since it lets them work better in composting, and keeps
>litter from hanging around forever. UV degradation is sometimes a
>bug, and sometimes a feature.

These were behind glass. How much UV penetrates standard automotive
hatchback safety glass? I thought glass pretty much blocked UV.

It's possible that the three bags in question were ones that were
designed to degrade. The hatchback in question was pretty close to
horizontal, so the bags could get full vertical noontime sun.

I got a dealer to do their "deluxe detailing" (kind of a misnomer
since it was their bottom level of four possible detailing princes - I
guess it migrated from the top end of car washes to bottom end of
detailing) and they were able to vaccuum up all but one or two
fragments of the bags.

[()]

On May 21, 1:33 am, "Gus" <gus.over...@geemail.com> wrote:
> "Shawn Wilson" <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:2df71dbc-d575-4f6e...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 20, 10:18 am, Howard Hail <howartholh...@notmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My supermarkets offer a tiny discount if I use reusable grocery bags, and
> > I
> > wish for the sake of old mother earth that I did, but I hate the cheap
> > ones
> > like this:
>
> Sigh...
>
> Reusable grocery bags are a scam.  Pure green-washing.  Over a human
> lifetime, disposable plastic has the smallest footprint.  Do you count
> the cost of remembering and lugging those reusable bags?

Tha bags are by the door, I pick them up when I go shopping. No great
effort is required. Do you count the time and the cost involved in
disposing of plastic bags?

>Repairing/
> replacing them?

There are some canvas bags I have had for more than 20 years. I know
because they are from conferences and the date is printed on them.
They are still in great shape, no need to repair or to replace them
any time soon. I must have used them at least a thousand times.

Washing them?  (DO you wash them?  Frequent source of
> food borne illness if you don't, remember to include the rather
> substantial costs of that...)

I do wash them occasionally, but it will be less than 1 load/year. Can
you give a reliable cite for food borne illness resulting from not
using single use plastic bags?

Have you considered the cost of goods lost or damaged due to flimsy
plastic bags breaking?

[Mac]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:16:12 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:12:22 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>[plastic grocery bags]
>>>d a long time buried in dumps, but I'm not so sure that
>>>they last in the sunlight.
>>>
>>>I had a few things in three plastic bags in the trunk of my car since
>>>about a year ago. When I was cleaning my car out for resale, none of
>>>the pieces of the plastic bags were more than a couple of inches
>>>across, and most of the plastic was no more than a quarter inch
>>>across. The bags were basically powdered by a single year in the sun.
>>>
>>>And a major pain to try to vacuum up.
>>
>>That's not their natural state, though; many bags are designed to
>>degrade, since it lets them work better in composting, and keeps
>>litter from hanging around forever. UV degradation is sometimes a
>>bug, and sometimes a feature.
>
>These were behind glass. How much UV penetrates standard automotive
>hatchback safety glass? I thought glass pretty much blocked UV.

UVB, yeah. UVA, not so much. Laminated glass and some tints will
block a lot of UVA, but even a relatively small amount can add up if
something is in the same position for a year or so.

[Gus]

"Mac" <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote in message
news:9mspp8pfl5mcdpnu6...@4ax.com...

>>From Gus
>
> Now, there's an authoritative cite. "Gus." Better than "OED," that
> is.

LOL!

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 22, 11:45 am, "()" <karom...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Reusable grocery bags are a scam.  Pure green-washing.  Over a human
> > lifetime, disposable plastic has the smallest footprint.  Do you count
> > the cost of remembering and lugging those reusable bags?
>
> Tha bags are by the door, I pick them up when I go shopping. No great
> effort is required.

They don't get "by the door" on their own. You had to put effort into
getting them there. It adds up.

> Do you count the time and the cost involved in
> disposing of plastic bags?

Wad, toss. They don't have to be stored or maintained.

> >Repairing/
> > replacing them?
>
> There are some canvas bags I have had for more than 20 years. I know
> because they are from conferences and the date is printed on them.
> They are still in great shape, no need to repair or to replace them
> any time soon. I must have used them at least a thousand times.

How much did they cost? How much effort do you put into maintaining
them, even if only shaking out or brushing. How about storing them?

> Washing them?  (DO you wash them?  Frequent source of
>
> > food borne illness if you don't, remember to include the rather
> > substantial costs of that...)
>
> I do wash them occasionally, but it will be less than 1 load/year. Can
> you give a reliable cite for food borne illness resulting from not
> using single use plastic bags?

Can I? Yeah. I can look it up. At least articles on the rise in the
incidence of food borne illnesses. Do some of your own research
though.

> Have you considered the cost of goods lost or damaged due to flimsy
> plastic bags breaking?

I didn't consider the cost of worn reusables breaking either. And
plastic isn't that flimsy. Surprisingly strong, those bags.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 22, 11:04 am, Mac <anmcc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:

> >> Last I checked, if you actually use a fairly low-initial cost reusable
> >> back 50-150 times, depending on area, it generally pays
> >> back...everything, damn near, except exercise. All else equal, of
> >> course, which it often ain't.
>
> >From Gus
>
> Now, there's an authoritative cite.  "Gus." Better than "OED,"  that
> is.

Beats your cite here of... nothing. If you want to argue the 3 cent
figure, present your arguments why a diffferent number is more
accueate. You mere snottiness is evidence only of your ignorance.

> >"3 cents for a plastic bag".  $0.03 x 50 = $1.50.  $0.03 x
> >150 = $4.50.
>
> No, Shawn.  You started out claiming that the bag's "footprint" is
> less; that's a term of art of another discipline.  So is
> "greenwashing."

Neat thing about retail rpices, they are all encompassing.

> Now, if you's started out saying "the impact of grocery bags on the
> economy and the environment is minimal compared with the impact of
> product choices for what's in the bag, and a lot of this bagophilia is
> really just showing off or advertising" I suspect I would agree with
> you.

Yawn. You don't actually have anything to say, do you? You don't
like what I said but I can't help but notice that you have jack shit
by way of actual argument to present against it.

I know the Left is retarded and all that, but whiny and emotional
claims of "is not!" and "well maybe" are not arguments.

> Back to your figures for a minute,  if we  are going to go by
> individual economics, for me, the figure would be "5-10 cents,
> depending."  See, because a good reusable bag mimics a proper paper
> bag, and they run 8-10 cents, not 3.

People don't use paper, they use plastic. Many stores, including the
ones I am familiar with in this area don't seem to have paper bags at
all. Maybe some are hidden somewhere, I dunno. Regardless, certainly
the vast majority of shopping bags are, in fact PLASTIC. And when
greenies complain, they complain about plastic bags, not paper ones.

> (Students of the art of BS detection will recall the magisterial "How
> to Lie With Statistics," which gives an example of statistics,
> seemingly valid, but actually plucked from the air, also by an
> economist of sorts.  Whatever you want to say against Marx, he was
> actually published, unlike Monks here.)

And the personal attacks... Not really relevant to the topic of
discussion, but what do you expect? Certainly not facts or reason
fromt he delusional side of the spectrum.

> >So, right there only the very cheapest (< $4.50) reusable bags are in
> >contention at all.  And I frankly doubt they have the durability to
> >last for 150 uses.
>
> But, as usual, you would be wrong.  The microban bags Safeway and
> Win-Dixie, among others, sell, last at least 200 uses, from my
> personal experience, and they cost the consumer between 1 and 2
> dollars. (5 bucks the pack of 5, two bucks apiece.)

And, thus they are more expensive than plastic. As i already pointed
out, they would have to be free to exceed the econonomy of plastic.

> The durability is also easy enough to check, the same material is used
> for bulktainers bags and dumpster bags, albeit without the
> antibacterial coating.  Those bulktainers, btw, are usually used for
> food.   Funny, that.

But not used to 200 repeated uses. The point of the additional uses
you mentioned was DISPOSABIILTY, not re-use. And durability is, in
fact not trivial to check. Feel free to provide cites beyond you
meager unsubstantiated claims. YOu won't of course, but I DID ask...

> >Add in the cost of remembering and lugging the damn things.  Say 3
> >seconds of effort per bag per shopping trip (or a 1 minute "Oh, I
> >forget the bag" detour to get it every 20 trips).  Valuing the average
> >person's time at $12/hr (quite low, $20+ would be more accurate),
>
> Now, now, Shawn.  Real economists could tell you that people's time
> value varies with activity, as shown  by revealed preferences.   Many
> of us value our transportation time well below minimum wage for
> regular commuting, although that is further complicated by the
> different value assigned to sunk costs, future costs, and immediate
> costs.

You present no arguments why my figure is unreasonable nor why another
figure should be used instead. For all your bullshit, I will take
that as acceptance of my figure.

> Given how the loonier wing of the greenies dote on showing off their
> environmentalicism, they'd probably pay for the privilege, never mind
> count the cost of it.

Nonethelss they are pointlessly and hypocritically wasting* scarce and
valuable resources in their supposed quest to save scarce and valuable
resources...

*as in expending more than other alternatives to achieve the same end.

> >Folding, shaking out, storing after your trip- say another 3 seconds
> >per bag.  Note, if you keep them in your car to save the effort of
> >getting them before your trip you have the additional effort of moving
> >them there from your kitchen after your trip...
>
> While on planet earth, the usual approach is to place them in that
> designated "stuff going elsewhere" spot that every house somehow
> acquires, and taking it when you are going there next time, no special
> trip required.  Grab the bags and the stuff for the cleaner, and the
> library returns, all at once.

3 seconds per bag per use on average was a resonable fignore and you
present no reasons not to use it.

> >So, now your 150 use reusable bag has to cost less than $1.50 to be
> >more efficient than plastic.  Note- not cost to YOU, cost to get TO
> >you.  'Free bags' they 'just give away' still cost the provider money
> >because they consume valuable resources and the consumption of
> >resources is the issue here.
>
> Glad to see you've finally conceded that advertising is a simple drag
> on the economy, Shawn.

Excuse me? Advertising is *** NOT*** a "simple drag on the economy".
Such belief is amazingly ignorant and stupid. It is as productive an
activity as anything else.

> >Washing...  Say $1.00 per load (all in- water, electricity, heat,
> >detergent), and that you can do 20 bags per load = 5 cents per bag per
> >washing.
>
> Meanwhile, on planet earth, an intelligent consumer designates one or
> two bags - often , oddly, insulated ones, for the stuff likely to have
> sanitation issues, and avoids the whole mess for the rest of them.

Oh, c'mon. You KNOW I always win this crap. I am ALWAYS right. And,
you, you're just a pathetic loser...

http://www.foodlegal.com.au/uploads/Cross%20contamination%20of%20reusable%20shopping%20bags_i171.pdf

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to assess the potential for cross-
contamination of food products by reusable bags used to carry
groceries. Reusable bags were collected at random from consumers as
they entered grocery stores in California and Arizona. In interviews,
it was found that reusable bags are seldom if ever washed and often
used for multiple purposes. Large numbers of bacteria were found in
almost all bags and coliform bacteria in half. Escherichia coli were
identified in 8% of the bags, as well as a wide range of enteric
bacteria, including several opportunistic pathogens. When meat juices
were added to bags and stored in the trunks of cars for two hours, the
number of bacteria increased 10-fold, indicating the potential for
bacterial growth in the bags. Hand or machine washing was found to
reduce the bacteria in bags by > 99.9%. These results indicate that
reusable bags, if not properly washed on a regular basis, can play a
role in the cross-contamination of foods. It is recommended that the
public be educated about the proper care of reusable bags by means of
printed instructions on the bags or through public service
announcements.

> This, of course ignores the Magic Numbers Snatched From the Air- only
> 20 bags?  Did the washer come paired with an easy-bake oven?

Feel free to cite data on how many will fit. 20 seemed a reasonable
figure. Oh, and I low-balled the cost per wash anyway. $1? Really?
No.

> >Wash them every 5 trips (as in, say, once a month) and...
> >The bag would have to be FREE to be more efficient than plastic.  I
> >don't care how far and how long you search the net, reusable bags will
> >use more than ZERO resources to produce...
>
> >Don't wash them?  Buy organic vegetables grown in natural fertilizer?
> >Pesticide free?  You can calculate the expected amortized cost of
> >those food borne illnesses and insectile parasites yourself...
>
> Composting eliminates most pathogens;

And the really NEAT thing about self replicating organisms is that
eliminating "most" of them isn't enough...

> >Don't
> >forget lost wages.  Lose 1 day of work and that's 8hrs x $12/hr = $96.00
> >= 3200 plastic bags.
>
> The only research suggesting a real risk from re-usables was  funded
> by...the disposable bag industry.

That's interesting. Do you have any EVIDENCE OF THAT FACT? Are you
citing counter studies funded by the re-usable bag industry? Do you
have anything whatsoever to say about the quality of the research or
are you just going to go on raw paranoia here?

>  The only  incident, so far,
> involved norovirus and a bunch of kids eating cooking out of the
> (reusable) bag.

The ONLY incident? You know this how? Do you think every 24-hour
stomach illness gets reported to the fucking Federal government?

> >Yes, disposable IS more efficient.
>
> Then why has industry so often abandoned them?

No, disposable plastyic shopping bags are pretty much the industry
standard...

> >Waste management?  Landfill is literally dirt cheap.
>
> ...which is to say, around here, maybe 20 thousand an acre, which is
> part of why it has to go by train to the other side of the mountains.
> All my trash takes a 300 mile train ride.

So what? Saves resources that way.

[Gus]

"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0be86a71-3e98-483e...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> Now, there's an authoritative cite. "Gus." Better than "OED," that
> is.

3 cents for a plastic bag and 10 cents for paper is just what the Aldi
Grocery charges. I've not noticed anywhere else charging. But then I don't
shop much.

Isn't there data from LA or Ireland and other places that have banned
plastic bags? And there must have been research that led those placed to
put in place bans. Something like that isn't usually done willy nilly.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 22, 5:13 pm, "Gus" <gus.over...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Now, there's an authoritative cite. "Gus." Better than "OED," that
> > is.
>
> 3 cents for a plastic bag and 10 cents for paper is just what the Aldi
> Grocery charges. I've not noticed anywhere else charging.  But then I don't
> shop much.
>
> Isn't there data from LA or Ireland and other places that have banned
> plastic bags?  And there must have been research that led those placed to
> put in place bans.  Something like that isn't usually done willy nilly.

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SSRN-id2196481.pdf

Abstract
Recently, many jurisdictions have implemented bans or imposed taxes
upon plastic grocery bags
on environmental grounds. San Francisco County was the first major US
jurisdiction to enact
such a regulation, implementing a ban in 2007. There is evidence,
however, that reusable
grocery bags, a common substitute for plastic bags, contain
potentially harmful bacteria. We
examine emergency room admissions related to these bacteria in the
wake of the San Francisco
ban. We find that ER visits spiked when the ban went into effect.
Relative to other counties, ER
admissions increase by at least one fourth, and deaths exhibit a
similar increase.

[Gus]

"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0faea0cb-1d93-45fd...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

On May 22, 5:13 pm, "Gus" <gus.over...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Isn't there data from LA or Ireland and other places that have banned
> plastic bags? And there must have been research that led those placed to
> put in place bans. Something like that isn't usually done willy nilly.

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SSRN-id2196481.pdf

----

This appears to mostly deal with harmful bacteria issue. People who don't
know about basic hygiene and cleanliness will be weeded out eventually so it
should become less of a problem over time. In the meantime, maybe there
should be better education especially at grocery stores and places that
could be the source. Surely, grocery stores don't want their customers
dying or filing lawsuits.

I'll look at this more later. At the moment, I have a sudden urge to go
wash my re-usable grocery bag.

[Greg Goss]

"Gus" <gus.o...@geemail.com> wrote:

>"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0be86a71-3e98-483e...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Now, there's an authoritative cite. "Gus." Better than "OED," that
>> is.
>
>3 cents for a plastic bag and 10 cents for paper is just what the Aldi
>Grocery charges. I've not noticed anywhere else charging. But then I don't
>shop much.

Most local stores charge a nickel (or deduct a nickel if you bring
bags). But I think that's a city bylaw forcing the price.

One of the stores has a wholesale section. I think you can buy
grocery-style ("T-shirt") bags 500 at a time for something like a
penny each over HERE, or a nickel at the cashier.

[Greg Goss]

"Gus" <gus.o...@geemail.com> wrote:

>"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0faea0cb-1d93-45fd...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>On May 22, 5:13 pm, "Gus" <gus.over...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Isn't there data from LA or Ireland and other places that have banned
>> plastic bags? And there must have been research that led those placed to
>> put in place bans. Something like that isn't usually done willy nilly.
>
>http://blogs.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SSRN-id2196481.pdf
>

>This appears to mostly deal with harmful bacteria issue. People who don't
>know about basic hygiene and cleanliness will be weeded out eventually so it
>should become less of a problem over time. In the meantime, maybe there
>should be better education especially at grocery stores and places that
>could be the source. Surely, grocery stores don't want their customers
>dying or filing lawsuits.

Shawn was making the point that cleaning out the canvas bags is a
major nuisance factor and that people never do it. So "customers
dying" is a valid point to make. I don't have the time to follow into
the study he cites to see if it's valid - my reflex is skepticism.
But it's a valid point to raise, and the cite stands until validly
criticised.

[bill van]

In article <b05ds4...@mid.individual.net>,

Whole Foods here in Vancouver reduces your bill by a dime if you bring
your own bag. I'm not sure if that's a chain-wide policy; it might just
be a carryover from Capers, the local Vancouver chain that Whole Foods
bought out when they were establishing their brand here. They provide a
list of three charities (which rolls over from time to time) at the
cashiers, and if you opt not to reduce your bill, the dime goes to the
charity of your choice.

bill

[Gus]

"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
news:b05ds4...@mid.individual.net...

> "Gus" <gus.o...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:0be86a71-3e98-483e...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Now, there's an authoritative cite. "Gus." Better than "OED," that
>>> is.
>>
>>3 cents for a plastic bag and 10 cents for paper is just what the Aldi
>>Grocery charges. I've not noticed anywhere else charging. But then I
>>don't
>>shop much.
>
> Most local stores charge a nickel (or deduct a nickel if you bring
> bags). But I think that's a city bylaw forcing the price.

A couple years ago, the Kroger here would reduce your bill 3 cents if you
brought your own bags, but that only lasted for a short time. Not sure why
they stopped it, seemed like a good incentive... Though on loophole was if
you use paper bags. I usually use paper (easier to transport on the bike
luggage carrier and bungee cord tie) and when I would put the paper at the
checkout place to but items in, the nice computer lady would ask very
pleasantly: "are you using you're own bags?" If you hit "yes" it would
deduct 3 cents Even though I had taken the bags from under the checkout
counter and had not brought them.

I never see anyone using paper bags (except me), but there must be some that
do because they occasionally run out. (Which is the main reason I started
to bring a couple, just in case.)

[Mac]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:47:09 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 22, 11:04�am, Mac <anmcc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:
>
>> >> Last I checked, if you actually use a fairly low-initial cost reusable
>> >> back 50-150 times, depending on area, it generally pays
>> >> back...everything, damn near, except exercise. All else equal, of
>> >> course, which it often ain't.
>>
>> >From Gus
>>
>> Now, there's an authoritative cite. �"Gus." Better than "OED," �that
>> is.
>
>
>Beats your cite here of... nothing.

Your assertion, your burden of proof, Monks.

More to the point, I did mention a particular commercial price source,
and pointed out there appeared to be only one rather compromised
study which suggested bags as a significant vector...which you
promptly cited. Almost as if it's the only one, or something.

Since then, you seem to have cited another, which is openly laughable
rather than merely less than supportive of your claim. I suppose
that's a kind of progress. "Advancing in a different direction," eh?

>> >"3 cents for a plastic bag". �$0.03 x 50 = $1.50. �$0.03 x
>> >150 = $4.50.
>>
>> No, Shawn. �You started out claiming that the bag's "footprint" is
>> less; that's a term of art of another discipline. �So is
>> "greenwashing."
>
>
>Neat thing about retail rpices, they are all encompassing.

Not, say, of "carbon capture," or "litter removal," or"storm drain
blockage," no. That's the reason why yer intelligent Greenie differs
from you, and from yer unintelligent Greenie; he sees externalities
that others gloss over. (Whether he sees them correctly is another
question.)

(Nor does that fact mean anything whatsoever about any particular
price's reflection of its actual direct costs. You should find
someone who knows econ to explain it to you.)

>> Now, if you's started out saying "the impact of grocery bags on the
>> economy and the environment is minimal compared with the impact of
>> product choices for what's in the bag, and a lot of this bagophilia is
>> really just showing off or advertising" I suspect I would agree with
>> you.
>
>
>Yawn. You don't actually have anything to say, do you?

Yup. Just said it. And, predictably, because you can't understand
it, you merely:

""
>don't
>like what I said but I can't help but notice that you have jack shit
>by way of actual argument to present against it.""

SIL.

>> Back to your figures for a minute, �if we �are going to go by
>> individual economics, for me, the figure would be "5-10 cents,
>> depending." �See, because a good reusable bag mimics a proper paper
>> bag, and they run 8-10 cents, not 3.
>
>
>People don't use paper, they use plastic.

Well, obviously Monkeys use plastic, and obviously they are more
common in simian climes - understandable, given both that paper is
cheaper near where it is made - the stuff is heavy, and shipping is a
noticeable part of its final price; and plastic has long been seen as
an inferior substitute that dominates poorer markets - but paper
grocery bags are far from dead. I don't know anywhere where they are
the default anymore, but all but one local supermarket here seems to
use them, and they are still the default at one. If most of your
customers are ordering substantial loads, they're more economical of
checkout space and shopping carts. Last I checked, paper was still
about 15% of the bags.

More importantly, whether the average disposable bag user uses paper
or plastic is completely irrelevant; paper and plastic bags aren't
functionally equivalent, and you can generally get a hell of a lot
more into a paper bag, and more still into even a cheap re-usable than
many paper bags, and more still into a quality bag. A trip that might
take two or three canvas bags could easily consume a dozen plastics.

(This has other effects, of course; it means that plastic disposables
often create extra work moving the goods, a cost you strangely forgot
to capture, along with the greater possibility of damage. Funny,
that.)

> Many stores, including the
>ones I am familiar with in this area don't seem to have paper bags at
>all. Maybe some are hidden somewhere, I dunno. Regardless, certainly
>the vast majority of shopping bags are, in fact PLASTIC. And when
>greenies complain, they complain about plastic bags, not paper ones.

Umm, no. Some of the arbophiles object to paper, and some of the
objections aren't environmental, except in the widest sense. Ireland,
for instance, viewed them as detrimental to the tourist trade, SF was
trying to save the whales, or something.

>> (Students of the art of BS detection will recall the magisterial "How
>> to Lie With Statistics," which gives an example of statistics,
>> seemingly valid, but actually plucked from the air, also by an
>> economist of sorts. �Whatever you want to say against Marx, he was
>> actually published, unlike Monks here.)
>
>
>And the personal attacks... Not really relevant to the topic of
>discussion, but what do you expect? Certainly not facts or reason
>fromt he delusional side of the spectrum.

Precisely. The delusional simply invent convenient numbers, and
prattle about how "reasonable" they are.

>> >So, right there only the very cheapest (< $4.50) reusable bags are in
>> >contention at all. �And I frankly doubt they have the durability to
>> >last for 150 uses.
>>
>> But, as usual, you would be wrong. �The microban bags Safeway and
>> Win-Dixie, among others, sell, last at least 200 uses, from my
>> personal experience, and they cost the consumer between 1 and 2
>> dollars. (5 bucks the pack of 5, two bucks apiece.)
>
>
>And, thus they are more expensive than plastic. As i already pointed
>out, they would have to be free to exceed the econonomy of plastic.

"Proven" by selectively pulling numbers out of the air, and lying
about disposal costs and externalities, yup.

>> The durability is also easy enough to check, the same material is used
>> for bulktainers bags and dumpster bags, albeit without the
>> antibacterial coating. �Those bulktainers, btw, are usually used for
>> food. � Funny, that.

>But not used to 200 repeated uses.

FIBC's life spans are measured in years or decades. They see a lot of
cycles - thousands rather than hundreds in some cases.

> The point of the additional uses
>you mentioned was DISPOSABIILTY, not re-use.

No, Shawn. That was your take, undoubtedly with invented figures to
match.

> And durability is, in
>fact not trivial to check. Feel free to provide cites beyond you
>meager unsubstantiated claims. YOu won't of course, but I DID ask...

You need a cite to demonstrate that a canvas bag, the dominant
domestic means of moving coal, firewood, and so forth in some parts
for over hundreds of years, can last more that a trivial number of
uses? Kewl. From personal experience, I know these things can last
decades, and used a couple myself regularly from around...I dunno?
'86?...until now, although I no longer use them for groceries. They
were used when I got 'em.

As for less substantial bags, three points: badly designed re-usables
are far less common than they used to be, since stores and customers
have come to recognize what makes a bad design. As I mentioned
elsewhere, a buck will get you something that will last at least a
couple hundred cycles, if you buy it by the pack.

Next, I've used some woven plastic bags for well over 2 years now,
well over 300 cycles. (Initially, they had to be used - Fort Mac
stopped using disposable bags.) They could pass for new.

Finally, as I mentioned, the same products are used commercially,
where the price balance between disposable and returnable is more
transparent to the user. The Market has Spoken, and Monkeys Must
Obey.

>> >Add in the cost of remembering and lugging the damn things. �Say 3
>> >seconds of effort per bag per shopping trip (or a 1 minute "Oh, I
>> >forget the bag" detour to get it every 20 trips). �Valuing the average
>> >person's time at $12/hr (quite low, $20+ would be more accurate),
>>
>> Now, now, Shawn. �Real economists could tell you that people's time
>> value varies with activity, as shown �by revealed preferences. � Many
>> of us value our transportation time well below minimum wage for
>> regular commuting, although that is further complicated by the
>> different value assigned to sunk costs, future costs, and immediate
>> costs.
>
>
>You present no arguments why my figure is unreasonable nor why another
>figure should be used instead. For all your bullshit, I will take
>that as acceptance of my figure.

Yeah, no doubt you will. But you will be wrong, and alone, which both
appear to be your natural state.

>> Given how the loonier wing of the greenies dote on showing off their
>> environmentalicism, they'd probably pay for the privilege, never mind
>> count the cost of it.
>
>
>
>Nonethelss they are pointlessly and hypocritically wasting* scarce and
>valuable resources in their supposed quest to save scarce and valuable
>resources...
>
>*as in expending more than other alternatives to achieve the same end.

Ain't "greenwashing," though.

>> >Folding, shaking out, storing after your trip- say another 3 seconds
>> >per bag. �Note, if you keep them in your car to save the effort of
>> >getting them before your trip you have the additional effort of moving
>> >them there from your kitchen after your trip...
>>
>> While on planet earth, the usual approach is to place them in that
>> designated "stuff going elsewhere" spot that every house somehow
>> acquires, and taking it when you are going there next time, no special
>> trip required. �Grab the bags and the stuff for the cleaner, and the
>> library returns, all at once.
>
>
>3 seconds per bag per use on average was a resonable fignore and you
>present no reasons not to use it.

"Fignore." Clearly a complex portmanteau word, composed of "figure,"
on the one hand, because it's a number; and "ignore," because that's
what you should do with it, 'cause it's made up.

But we mustn't let that obscure the usual Monkey Logic, Shawn; you are
following a statement which explained why your figure was possibly
wrong, and have snipped another, it looks like.

>> >So, now your 150 use reusable bag has to cost less than $1.50 to be
>> >more efficient than plastic. �Note- not cost to YOU, cost to get TO
>> >you. �'Free bags' they 'just give away' still cost the provider money
>> >because they consume valuable resources and the consumption of
>> >resources is the issue here.
>>
>> Glad to see you've finally conceded that advertising is a simple drag
>> on the economy, Shawn.
>
>
>
>Excuse me? Advertising is *** NOT*** a "simple drag on the economy".
>Such belief is amazingly ignorant and stupid. It is as productive an
>activity as anything else.

"Free" bags are adverting and marketing tools, or they are attempts to
rationalize checkout - i.e. they provide direct benefit to the
grocers, and that is what their cost should initially be set against.

Barring specific examples of instances where the bags are inefficient
marketing tools, or don't play a part in speeding checkout, their cost
to the consumer reflects the actual money the consumer paid.

>> >Washing... �Say $1.00 per load (all in- water, electricity, heat,
>> >detergent), and that you can do 20 bags per load = 5 cents per bag per
>> >washing.
>>
>> Meanwhile, on planet earth, an intelligent consumer designates one or
>> two bags - often , oddly, insulated ones, for the stuff likely to have
>> sanitation issues, and avoids the whole mess for the rest of them.
>
>
>Oh, c'mon. You KNOW I always win this crap. I am ALWAYS right. And,
>you, you're just a pathetic loser...

Invincible Fignorance.

>
>http://www.foodlegal.com.au/uploads/Cross%20contamination%20of%20reusable%20shopping%20bags_i171.pdf
>
>ABSTRACT
>The purpose of this study was to assess the potential for cross-
>contamination of food products by reusable bags used to carry
>groceries. Reusable bags were collected at random from consumers as
>they entered grocery stores in California and Arizona. In interviews,
>it was found that reusable bags are seldom if ever washed and often
>used for multiple purposes. Large numbers of bacteria were found in
>almost all bags and coliform bacteria in half. Escherichia coli were
>identified in 8% of the bags, as well as a wide range of enteric
>bacteria, including several opportunistic pathogens. When meat juices
>were added to bags and stored in the trunks of cars for two hours, the
>number of bacteria increased 10-fold, indicating the potential for
>bacterial growth in the bags. Hand or machine washing was found to
>reduce the bacteria in bags by > 99.9%. These results indicate that
>reusable bags, if not properly washed on a regular basis, can play a
>role in the cross-contamination of foods. It is recommended that the
>public be educated about the proper care of reusable bags by means of
>printed instructions on the bags or through public service
>announcements.

Yup, that's the little study paid for by the plastic bag folks.

>> This, of course ignores the Magic Numbers Snatched From the Air- only
>> 20 bags? �Did the washer come paired with an easy-bake oven?
>
>
>Feel free to cite data on how many will fit. 20 seemed a reasonable
>figure. Oh, and I low-balled the cost per wash anyway. $1? Really?
>No.

Depends. Get a quality machine cheap, and take care of it - or just
hand-wash - and the capital costs drop. Lessee...600 bucks, 12 year
life (14, actually, but lets round down for easier math) that's 25
cents a load, add another 75 for water, detergent, and energy, a buck
is a pretty good estimate, Monks. At least for me around here, where
water and some forms of energy are cheap. (That's ignoring some of the
costs, but also grotesquely underestimating the number of loads.)

>> >Wash them every 5 trips (as in, say, once a month) and...
>> >The bag would have to be FREE to be more efficient than plastic. �I
>> >don't care how far and how long you search the net, reusable bags will
>> >use more than ZERO resources to produce...
>>
>> >Don't wash them? �Buy organic vegetables grown in natural fertilizer?
>> >Pesticide free? �You can calculate the expected amortized cost of
>> >those food borne illnesses and insectile parasites yourself...
>>
>> Composting eliminates most pathogens;
>
>
>And the really NEAT thing about self replicating organisms is that
>eliminating "most" of them isn't enough...

Of course it is, in some cases. If they don't have suitable areas to
reproduce, then UV, other organisms, hunger, and simple abrasion'll
take care of the little bassets. Otherwise we'd all be long dead.

>> >Don't
>> >forget lost wages. �Lose 1 day of work and that's 8hrs x $12/hr = $96.00
>> >= 3200 plastic bags.
>>
>> The only research suggesting a real risk from re-usables was �funded
>> by...the disposable bag industry.
>
>
>
>That's interesting. Do you have any EVIDENCE OF THAT FACT?

Ummm, yeah. Did you read your own cite? (Of course not. If you had,
and understood it, you wouldn't have posted it, except as a
concession.)

The American Chemical Council could just as well be named the Plastic
Bag Lobby these days.

>Are you
>citing counter studies funded by the re-usable bag industry?

What a strange little Monkey World you live in, Shawn; you think the
remedy for bullshit is more bullshit.

>Do you
>have anything whatsoever to say about the quality of the research

Yup.


Let's run through this . First, there's not even a suggestion that
this is a valid cross section of reusable bag users - why would
someone with a good, well maintained bag give it away for destruction?
So, even without bias on the researcher's part, the bag owner's bias
is to trade off junkers. And people with a life to get on with, as
opposed to

Next, there's always bias in selection of participants, if only for
reasons of speed.

Next, anyone who knows anything at all about sanitation realizes that
detectable levels of fecal coliforms are depressingly common wherever
humans are found. (Part of this is because high levels are reliable
indicator of water contamination, and we've gotten pretty good at
testing for them quick and cheap.) So, presence in the bag could
represent the shopper's recent bad hygiene rather that a problem
particular to the bag. A valid test would compare all types of bags
exiting the store, filled, or, better still, arriving at the home.

Next, the test for replication ignored the fact that many of the
growth media in normal use would, in fact, stink - meat and fish
juices don't improve like that - and would encourage cleaning, or at
least a good blast of Lysol, and that grossly contaminated bags tend
to be dealt with.

Next, it ignored the long-term results of cooking the bags in the
trunk.

Next....no, why bother? It's a useful piece by a hygienist - almost
the last hygienist - that's being used by mendacious morons, you least
of them. At least the other guys have the excuse that it pays the
mortgage.
>
>> �The only �incident, so far,

>> involved norovirus and a bunch of kids eating cooking out of the
>> (reusable) bag.
>
>
>
>The ONLY incident?

I assume "known" or "reported" is understood, as it is in almost any
M&M statistic.

> You know this how? Do you think every 24-hour
>stomach illness gets reported to the fucking Federal government?

I dunno, do you believe something can be a major ongoing health issue
without a single unequivocal example of its occurrence?

Kewl.

>> >Yes, disposable IS more efficient.
>>
>> Then why has industry so often abandoned them?

>No, disposable plastyic shopping bags are pretty much the industry
>standard...

When pawning off costs and externalities to the customers, yup. The
back end, where they often have to pay themselves, is quite different.

>> >Waste management? �Landfill is literally dirt cheap.
>>
>> ...which is to say, around here, maybe 20 thousand an acre, which is
>> part of why it has to go by train to the other side of the mountains.
>> All my trash takes a 300 mile train ride.
>
>
>So what?

So, it ain't dirt cheap...and dirt isn't always cheap, for that
matter. It's garbage can and truck and transfer station and dozer and
container and deep well and demurrage and locomotive and diesel and
dozer cheap before the dirt even enters into it...and it's a system
that depends on perpetual monitoring.

Around her, just the present retail costs are around a buck a gallon.
Testing suggests that that's about 25 used grocery bags, so there's at
least 4 cents of disposal costs.


>Saves resources that way.

And you can pull numbers from the air to prove it!

[Greg Goss]

Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:

>Not, say, of "carbon capture," or "litter removal," or"storm drain
>blockage," no. That's the reason why yer intelligent Greenie differs
>from you, and from yer unintelligent Greenie; he sees externalities
>that others gloss over. (Whether he sees them correctly is another
>question.)

This is why I'd prefer to see an intelligently designed carbon tax,
rather than a cap and trade system. It would bring the carbon
footprint into the product price where consumers could make simpler
choices.

Since BC isn't a nation and doesn't control customs, I don't know if
their carbon tax does anything about "embedded carbon emissions" from
imported manufactured products. What other places do carbon taxes so
far?

[Greg Goss]

Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:

>>> The durability is also easy enough to check, the same material is used
>>> for bulktainers bags and dumpster bags, albeit without the
>>> antibacterial coating.  Those bulktainers, btw, are usually used for
>>> food.   Funny, that.
>
>>But not used to 200 repeated uses.
>
>FIBC's life spans are measured in years or decades. They see a lot of
>cycles - thousands rather than hundreds in some cases.

This discussion needs to be expanded a bunch. I think that Shawn was
talking about canvas bags. I'm not familiar with either "bulktainers
bags" nor "dumpster bags", and can't visualize what either of you are
talking about here.

[Gus]

"Mac" <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote in message

news:4j5sq851pno1qdoql...@4ax.com...

>
> Not, say, of "carbon capture," or "litter removal," or"storm drain
> blockage," no. That's the reason why yer intelligent Greenie differs
> from you, and from yer unintelligent Greenie; he sees externalities
> that others gloss over. (Whether he sees them correctly is another
> question.)

Sea turtles see plastic grocery bags in the water as jellyfish and gobble
them down. But it blocks their digestion system.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jun 4, 11:06 am, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> This is why I'd prefer to see an intelligently designed carbon tax,
> rather than a cap and trade system.  It would bring the carbon
> footprint into the product price where consumers could make simpler
> choices.

Sigh...

One more time-

Carbon (specifically CO2) is GOOD for the environment and everything
in it. I say this as an expert economist. You want to argue? Fine.
Show me an *economist* and his arguments otherwise. I say this
because someone will inevitably ask "well, are you a climatologist?
No. Then you can't criticize..." Well, I AM a fucking economist, and
They. Are. Not.

Second, as a statistician, the statistical analysis I see them publish
can only be described as laughably incompetent, assuming it is not
overtly fradulent. CF Mann's 'hockey stick'.

Also, speaking as a scientist, the AGW hysteria is not about science,
it is about snake oil. How can you tell? When they talk about
suppressing research merely because they don't like the results and
suppressing researchers because they don't like what they say and
simultaneously screaming about how 'universal' support for their side
is. Cf climategate emails.

Fourthly, also speaking as a scientist, the research they don't
suppress actually contradicts the core of their theories. Also, the
warming they have been screaming about stopped 17 years ago, And,
ultimately, there are superior theories to explain recent events that
simply don't have anythign whatsoever to do with humanity.

[Les Albert]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:09:13 -0400, "Gus" <gus.o...@geemail.com>
wrote:
>"Mac" <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote i

>> Not, say, of "carbon capture," or "litter removal," or"storm drain
>> blockage," no. That's the reason why yer intelligent Greenie differs
>> from you, and from yer unintelligent Greenie; he sees externalities
>> that others gloss over. (Whether he sees them correctly is another
>> question.)

>Sea turtles see plastic grocery bags in the water as jellyfish and gobble
>them down. But it blocks their digestion system.

The plastic also harms the baby otters.

Les

[Mac]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:09:34 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> The durability is also easy enough to check, the same material is used
>>>> for bulktainers bags and dumpster bags, albeit without the
>>>> antibacterial coating.  Those bulktainers, btw, are usually used for
>>>> food.   Funny, that.
>>
>>>But not used to 200 repeated uses.
>>
>>FIBC's life spans are measured in years or decades. They see a lot of
>>cycles - thousands rather than hundreds in some cases.
>
>This discussion needs to be expanded a bunch. I think that Shawn was
>talking about canvas bags.

Probably, but who can tell for sure?

> I'm not familiar with either "bulktainers
>bags" nor "dumpster bags", and can't visualize what either of you are
>talking about here.

"Bulktainers," properly speaking, are a cross between a flat-bottom
gondola car and an intermodal container. Big metal box with no top.
The bags are, roughly, a cross between a conex and a honking big
shopping bag; there are also smaller versions sized to fit on standard
and double pallets. Some of them have to be bacteriostatic finished,
and the material used-although not the guage of it, obviously, is the
same as used in some shopping bags, large rice bags, and so forth.
You'll also see them called "FIBCs," "jumbo bags," "jumbos" "big
bags," and so forth; the name used varies from place to place and from
industry to industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_intermediate_bulk_container

[Mac]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:29:25 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
wrote:

But that helps the baby seals.

[Les Albert]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:14:08 -0700, Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu>
wrote:

That's bad for the baby fish.

Les

[Howard Hail]

Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote in

> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:29:25 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>

>>The plastic also harms the baby otters.
>
> But that helps the baby seals.

Nature has her reasons and all that, but I have to say the video of the sea
otter and the baby seal was one of the most disturbing things I've seen in
a long time.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jun 4, 9:48 am, Mac <anmcc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:

> >> >From Gus
>
> >> Now, there's an authoritative cite. "Gus." Better than "OED," that
> >> is.
>
> >Beats your cite here of... nothing.
>
> Your assertion, your burden of proof, Monks.

And I am going to delete the entire rest of your post without
bothering to read it right here.

Note, You want to claim the number is in error? Fine. Cite your
evidence. You do not cite evidence but you demand that I do every bit
of research in this discussion. Well, OK. I have done it all. I am
right and you are wrong. I already posted the reasons. You have no
facts on your side. I win. It is as simple as that.

Your snort of derision is not an argument. it is you loudly
announcing that you are an ignorant, stupid jackass.

You want to pick a fight over soemthing as trivial and easily verified
as the cost of plastic bags? And you cite NOTHING? Waste someone
else's time.

[Greg Goss]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Carbon (specifically CO2) is GOOD for the environment and everything
>in it. I say this as an expert economist.

...

> Also, the
>warming they have been screaming about stopped 17 years ago, And,
>ultimately, there are superior theories to explain recent events that
>simply don't have anythign whatsoever to do with humanity.

17 years? You've got the cherry-picking wrong. 1998 was the outlier
"up" year that every denier compares to. 1996 was an outlier "down"
year that every year since has been WAY up from.

If you want to cherrypick 1998, then we could just as easily
cherry-pick 2000. Instead you have to look at the trend line.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif

I'll concede that it looks like the warming stalled from 1935 to 1975
or so.

[Greg Goss]

Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:09:34 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>>Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:

>>>FIBC's life spans are measured in years or decades. They see a lot of
>>>cycles - thousands rather than hundreds in some cases.
>>

>> I'm not familiar with either "bulktainers
>>bags" nor "dumpster bags", and can't visualize what either of you are
>>talking about here.
>
>"Bulktainers," properly speaking, are a cross between a flat-bottom
>gondola car and an intermodal container. Big metal box with no top.
>The bags are, roughly, a cross between a conex and a honking big
>shopping bag; there are also smaller versions sized to fit on standard
>and double pallets. Some of them have to be bacteriostatic finished,
>and the material used-although not the guage of it, obviously, is the
>same as used in some shopping bags, large rice bags, and so forth.
>You'll also see them called "FIBCs," "jumbo bags," "jumbos" "big
>bags," and so forth; the name used varies from place to place and from
>industry to industry.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_intermediate_bulk_container

OK, what you describe as a bunktainer isn something I only ever see
aimed at the dumpster market, with one end openable. I can visualize
one aimed at the intermodal market.

There's a company that's radio-marketing the pallet size bags at the
topsoil delivery market - that's the only context I've encountered
them, and I've never actually seen one. So the only name I know them
by is "big blue bags of topsoil". I presume that there's a hefty
deposit that you get back after you've wheelbarrowed the soil where
it's needed rather than where the truck dropped it.

[rroger]

On Jun 4, 5:47 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> Mac <anmcc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:
> >On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:09:34 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>

> >>Mac <anmcc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:
> >>>FIBC's life spans are measured in years or decades.  They see a lot of
> >>>cycles - thousands rather than hundreds in some cases.
>
> >> I'm not familiar with either "bulktainers
> >>bags" nor "dumpster bags", and can't visualize what either of you are
> >>talking about here.
>
> >"Bulktainers," properly speaking, are a cross between a flat-bottom
> >gondola car and an intermodal container.  Big metal box with no top.
> >The bags are, roughly, a cross between a conex and a honking big
> >shopping bag; there are also smaller versions sized to fit on standard
> >and double pallets.  Some of them have to be bacteriostatic finished,
> >and the material used-although not the guage of it, obviously, is the
> >same as used in some shopping bags, large rice bags, and so forth.
> >You'll also see them called  "FIBCs,"  "jumbo bags," "jumbos" "big
> >bags," and so forth; the name used varies from place to place and from
> >industry to industry.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_intermediate_bulk_container
>
> OK, what you describe as a bunktainer
>

Bunktainer?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jun 4, 2:42 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> > Also, the
> >warming they have been screaming about stopped 17 years ago, And,
> >ultimately, there are superior theories to explain recent events that
> >simply don't have anythign whatsoever to do with humanity.
>
> 17 years?  You've got the cherry-picking wrong.  1998 was the outlier
> "up" year that every denier compares to.  1996 was an outlier "down"
> year that every year since has been WAY up from.

Are you a statistician? Do you have more than one year of graduate
education in statistics on top of more than a year of undergrad in the
field? No? Then don't try that bullshit on ME...

Do you even know HOW to estimate a trend or the name for the specific
tests you would need to perform here?

> If you want to cherrypick 1998,

Speaking of cherrypicking, explain why cherrypicking the end of the
Little Ice Age is acceptible if cherrypicking in general is not...

We have climate data going back millennia. Current temps are
*average*. Climate is not 'changing'.

> I'll concede that it looks like the warming stalled from 1935 to 1975
> or so.

It is actually called a cooling trend, not "stalled"...

[Greg Goss]

rroger <raus...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Jun 4, 5:47 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>> >"Bulktainers," properly speaking, are a cross between a flat-bottom
>>

>> OK, what you describe as a bunktainer
>>
>Bunktainer?

Peter Ward <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>Greg Goss says...

>> now we're worried about the leakage in wall wards which is vastly
>> less.
>
>I keep well away from walls.

As I said ...

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>I had to go back and check that I hadn't spelled it that way. All day
>today my typing has been sucking.

[Greg Goss]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 4, 2:42�pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>> > Also, the
>> >warming they have been screaming about stopped 17 years ago, And,
>> >ultimately, there are superior theories to explain recent events that
>> >simply don't have anythign whatsoever to do with humanity.
>>
>> 17 years? �You've got the cherry-picking wrong. �1998 was the outlier
>> "up" year that every denier compares to. �1996 was an outlier "down"
>> year that every year since has been WAY up from.
>
>
>
>Are you a statistician? Do you have more than one year of graduate
>education in statistics on top of more than a year of undergrad in the
>field? No? Then don't try that bullshit on ME...

When I see you pulling bullshit, then I don't trust you on the
statistics. Too many "deniers" pull the OBVIOUS scams with the
numbers means that you need to show your work if you're trying to pull
something more subtle.

You pull a scam based on a single outlier then try to bluster me into
calling your bluff? Doesn't work that way.

>Do you even know HOW to estimate a trend or the name for the specific
>tests you would need to perform here?

Have you run the tests? By eyeball, you're full of shit. If you have
something more sophisticated, you need to trot it out.

>> If you want to cherrypick 1998,
>
>
>Speaking of cherrypicking, explain why cherrypicking the end of the
>Little Ice Age is acceptible if cherrypicking in general is not...
>
>We have climate data going back millennia. Current temps are
>*average*. Climate is not 'changing'.

We have climate data going back millennia. Climate IS changing. You
could get away with saying we're still emerging from an ice age, but
just denying doesn't work.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jun 4, 5:36 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> >> > Also, the
> >> >warming they have been screaming about stopped 17 years ago, And,
> >> >ultimately, there are superior theories to explain recent events that
> >> >simply don't have anythign whatsoever to do with humanity.
>
> >> 17 years?  You've got the cherry-picking wrong.  1998 was the outlier
> >> "up" year that every denier compares to.  1996 was an outlier "down"
> >> year that every year since has been WAY up from.
>
> >Are you a statistician?  Do you have more than one year of graduate
> >education in statistics on top of more than a year of undergrad in the
> >field?  No?  Then don't try that bullshit on ME...
>
> When I see you pulling bullshit, then I don't trust you on the
> statistics.  Too many "deniers" pull the OBVIOUS scams with the
> numbers means that you need to show your work if you're trying to pull
> something more subtle.

Greg. ARE you a statistician? Did you take literally YEARS of
courses on the analysis of data and the evaluation of trends
therefrom? I did.

When you were blythely spouting that "well that year was an outlier,
and blah, blah, blah..." bullshit,.. did you EVER just look at the
data series?

I know you really want to believe that I am a member of an evil
conspiracy, because I'm EEEVIL, you might want to think whether I
oppose those people you like not because I am EEEVIL, but because I am
actually a genuine expert in exactly this sort of analysis and they
are just dead wrong.

I listen and respond well to reason. You KNOW I have little tolerance
for bullshit.

> You pull a scam based on a single outlier then try to bluster me into
> calling your bluff?  Doesn't work that way.

You didn't even look at the data, did you? I did. While writing that
post I pulled it up. I have seen it before and knew what I would see,
but I checked again just to be sure.

Do you HONESTLY think someone with my expertise would be fooled by a
fucking outlier?

> >Do you even know HOW to estimate a trend or the name for the specific
> >tests you would need to perform here?
>
> Have you run the tests?  By eyeball, you're full of shit.

Because why? Because you didn't look at the data and you think the
effect is subtle?

So, ass-uming I run these tests, which btw I have the tools to do
right here. (internet for the data, Excel for the analysis) what's in
it for me? Certainly a lot of work on my part. What's my upside? I
already know the truth. Will you admit that you are wrong if I do
it? What guarantees do you offer? (no, I don't trust you)

>  If you have
> something more sophisticated, you need to trot it out.

Uh, YOU claimed the effect was entirely outlier driven. So, YOU need
do the analysis. Knock yourself out. I recommend that you do a
little web research and crib from someone else, saves a great deal of
effort that way.

You can't even tell me what you need to look for. No search term to
google it unless you already know. *I* know. I have that education
thing...

> >> If you want to cherrypick 1998,
>
> >Speaking of cherrypicking, explain why cherrypicking the end of the
> >Little Ice Age is acceptible if cherrypicking in general is not...
>
> >We have climate data going back millennia.  Current temps are
> >*average*.  Climate is not 'changing'.
>
> We have climate data going back millennia.  Climate IS changing.

Nope. Your assertion, prove your claim.

>  You
> could get away with saying we're still emerging from an ice age, but
> just denying doesn't work.

In the high middle ages southern England had the climate now typical
of France (we know from pollen and plant remains, not to mention
records of first frosts and rivers freezing over). In the Holocene
maximum/climate optimum average temperatures were HIGHER than they are
now.

A LACK of change is prima facia evidence for an ABSENCE of change.

Greg. In all seriousness, I am a fucking expert in this field. So
far all you have presented on your suide is vapid bullshit.

If that is all you are going to bring to this, quit now.

[BillTurlock]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:36:16 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>
>
>You pull a scam based on a

>single outlier

zat wunna them Frenchy watchamacallits?

[Greg Goss]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I know you really want to believe that I am a member of an evil
>conspiracy, because I'm EEEVIL, you might want to think whether I
>oppose those people you like not because I am EEEVIL, but because I am
>actually a genuine expert in exactly this sort of analysis and they
>are just dead wrong.

...

>So, ass-uming I run these tests, which btw I have the tools to do
>right here. (internet for the data, Excel for the analysis) what's in
>it for me? Certainly a lot of work on my part. What's my upside? I
>already know the truth. Will you admit that you are wrong if I do
>it? What guarantees do you offer? (no, I don't trust you)

You claim to have the skills. You claim that you MIGHT apply those
skills to prove your assertion, if you get the right compensation.

This says that you haven't yet applied those skills. So indeed your
claim to know is indeed bullshit.

>>  If you have
>> something more sophisticated, you need to trot it out.
>
>Uh, YOU claimed the effect was entirely outlier driven. So, YOU need
>do the analysis. Knock yourself out. I recommend that you do a
>little web research and crib from someone else, saves a great deal of
>effort that way.

You claimed that the climate change had stalled out for a specified
period of years and it's now MY claim to prove? I just called
bullshit on your obviously bogus claim, and now you admit that you
haven't run the calculations that would support it?

>Nope. Your assertion, prove your claim.

This argument started from

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Also, the
>warming they have been screaming about stopped 17 years ago, And,
>ultimately, there are superior theories to explain recent events that
>simply don't have anythign whatsoever to do with humanity.

It sure looks like it's your claim.

[Mary]

On Jun 5, 1:51 am, Tim <notr...@someisp.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:36:16 -0600, Greg Goss
>
>
>
>
>
> <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> I'm looking at miles of ice today so I'm not
> convinced anyone could make a good argument that
> we aren't in an ice age.


What we would that be? No ice here.

Mary

[Greg Goss]

Tim <not...@someisp.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:36:16 -0600, Greg Goss

>>We have climate data going back millennia. Climate IS changing. You
>>could get away with saying we're still emerging from an ice age, but
>>just denying doesn't work.
>

>I'm looking at miles of ice today so I'm not
>convinced anyone could make a good argument that
>we aren't in an ice age.

The ice used to be miles VERTICALLY.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jun 4, 9:45 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:


> >So, ass-uming I run these tests, which btw I have the tools to do
> >right here.  (internet for the data, Excel for the analysis) what's in
> >it for me?  Certainly a lot of work on my part.  What's my upside?  I
> >already know the truth.  Will you admit that you are wrong if I do
> >it?  What guarantees do you offer?  (no, I don't trust you)
>
> You claim to have the skills.  You claim that you MIGHT apply those
> skills to prove your assertion, if you get the right compensation.
>
> This says that you haven't yet applied those skills.  So indeed your
> claim to know is indeed bullshit.

Greg... Highly trained expert here. Unsubtle situation. You don't
need a light meter to know the Sun has risen...

> >Uh, YOU claimed the effect was entirely outlier driven.  So, YOU need
> >do the analysis.  Knock yourself out.  I recommend that you do a
> >little web research and crib from someone else, saves a great deal of
> >effort that way.
>
> You claimed that the climate change had stalled out for a specified
> period of years and it's now MY claim to prove?  I just called
> bullshit on your obviously bogus claim, and now you admit that you
> haven't run the calculations that would support it?

And, here we get to the heart of the matter. You have nothing to
offer and provide only bullshit when challenged. Hell, I GAVE YOU
INSTRUCTIONS on how to present an actual argument and you still
didn't.

You are perfectly typical of the AGW crowd.

[Greg Goss]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 4, 9:45 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>
>> >So, ass-uming I run these tests, which btw I have the tools to do
>> >right here.  (internet for the data, Excel for the analysis) what's in
>> >it for me?  Certainly a lot of work on my part.  What's my upside?  I
>> >already know the truth.  Will you admit that you are wrong if I do
>> >it?  What guarantees do you offer?  (no, I don't trust you)
>>
>> You claim to have the skills.  You claim that you MIGHT apply those
>> skills to prove your assertion, if you get the right compensation.
>>
>> This says that you haven't yet applied those skills.  So indeed your
>> claim to know is indeed bullshit.
>
>
>Greg... Highly trained expert here. Unsubtle situation. You don't
>need a light meter to know the Sun has risen...

That was my point. You are the one that said you needed to apply all
these skills before I could disbelieve your claim.

[William Clodius]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> Tim <not...@someisp.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:36:16 -0600, Greg Goss
>
> >>We have climate data going back millennia. Climate IS changing. You
> >>could get away with saying we're still emerging from an ice age, but
> >>just denying doesn't work.
> >
> >I'm looking at miles of ice today so I'm not
> >convinced anyone could make a good argument that
> >we aren't in an ice age.
>
> The ice used to be miles VERTICALLY.

From a climate scientist's point of view, it still extends miles
vertically, just not where many people live. By the accepted climate
definition, we are in a period where the ice age is still in existence,
but is, for the moment, in recession. Over the easily analyzed geologic
record, the ice ages ar largely driven by the locations of continents,
and hence continental drift. Once conditions get right for snow to last
a significant part of the non-winter, the loss of heat from reflected
sunlight can cool things off further driving the formation of ice
sheets. The environmental conditions that influence summer melt vary
primarilly with lattitude (and ice sheet cover), but over geologic time
scales solar surface temperature, area, earth orbit radius, green house
gases, and aerosols from cataclysmic events can modify climate by
several degrees. In practice, it is rare for other to modify the global
climate to the extent that snow can't last on land at the poles, or that
without an ice shet snow can last on land well away from the poles. The
geologic record suggests that as long as a continental sized land mass
has a geographic pole well in its interior that "continent" will almost
always have a significant ice sheet, but if the poles are well off the
coast of all major land masses, then it is unlikely that any of them
will have a major ice sheet. A continent sized ice sheet, even at the
poles, will reflect enough light in summer to cool the earth a few
degrees, allowing ice sheets to develope on other contnents that extend
into the arctics, provided conditions are right.

[William Clodius]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 4, 2:42 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> > > Also, the
> > >warming they have been screaming about stopped 17 years ago, And,
> > >ultimately, there are superior theories to explain recent events that
> > >simply don't have anythign whatsoever to do with humanity.
> >
> > 17 years? You've got the cherry-picking wrong. 1998 was the outlier
> > "up" year that every denier compares to. 1996 was an outlier "down"
> > year that every year since has been WAY up from.
>
>
>
> Are you a statistician? Do you have more than one year of graduate
> education in statistics on top of more than a year of undergrad in the
> field? No? Then don't try that bullshit on ME...
>

An ad hominem, and a particularly stupid example of it.

IAMNASBICPTBO.

Fitting a univariate regularly sampled series of data pre-processed by
experts, does not require more than one year of graduate statistics. The
obvious fit, of course, is a linear least squares fit to a low order
polynomial in time. My daughters at the end of high school could do
that, and I suspect so could Greg. Slightly less obvious would be a
multivariate fit using variable to which a more direct physical meaning
to model: CO2, CH4, and,say sunspot number. My oldest, after doing some
statitstical anlyses for her senior thesis, would probably think of the
CO2 if shown Greg's plot, and I suspect so would Greg in a little time.
One problem with that, is that sunspot number is an indirect measure of
solar radiance which is what realy influences the earth, but much more
limited data on that. But the earth, particularly the ocean, has a large
heat capacity, so the change we see now represents the changes in its
drivers of decades ago. In principle handled

> Do you even know HOW to estimate a trend or the name for the specific
> tests you would need to perform here?

The ones I'm aware of assume that the parameters consititute a complete
model of a system where, if the parametere were known, the only
residuals can be described by a Gaussian noise model, and I suspect also
assume the response of the model is essentially linear over the range of
uncertainties in the inferred parameters. Their use in evaluating any
fit (in particular the residuals to such a fit) to a multivariate
incompletely characterized non-linear chaotic sytem can be misleading,
though often you make do with what you've got, and oftten it is all we
have for comparing different forms of fits.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jun 8, 4:49 pm, wclod...@earthlink.net (William Clodius) wrote:

> > > > Also, the
> > > >warming they have been screaming about stopped 17 years ago, And,
> > > >ultimately, there are superior theories to explain recent events that
> > > >simply don't have anythign whatsoever to do with humanity.
>
> > > 17 years?  You've got the cherry-picking wrong.  1998 was the outlier
> > > "up" year that every denier compares to.  1996 was an outlier "down"
> > > year that every year since has been WAY up from.
>
> > Are you a statistician?  Do you have more than one year of graduate
> > education in statistics on top of more than a year of undergrad in the
> > field?  No?  Then don't try that bullshit on ME...
>
> An ad hominem, and a particularly stupid example of it.

The statistical anlysis was wrong. I pointed that out.

> Fitting a univariate regularly sampled series of data pre-processed by
> experts, does not require more than one year of graduate statistics. The
> obvious fit, of course, is a linear least squares fit to a low order
> polynomial in time. My daughters at the end of high school could do
> that, and I suspect so could Greg. Slightly less obvious would be a
> multivariate fit using variable to which a more direct physical meaning
> to model: CO2, CH4, and,say sunspot number.

Sigh... Since that issue was whether a given warming trend had
stopped, which is single variable statistics 101, why on earth would
anyone bring up multivariate statistics?

Oh, right, because you don't know what you're talking about...

> My oldest, after doing some
> statitstical anlyses for her senior thesis, would probably think of the
> CO2 if shown Greg's plot, and I suspect so would Greg in a little time.
> One problem with that, is that sunspot number is an indirect measure of
> solar radiance which is what realy influences the earth, but much more
> limited data on that. But the earth, particularly the ocean, has a large
> heat capacity, so the change we see now represents the changes in its
> drivers of decades ago. In principle handled

Sigh... Such ignorance.

Picking a city at random (Denver Colorado) I niote that today's
weather calls for a high of 89F and a low of 63F.

I want you to think about that good and hard in re your previous
paragraph.

> > Do you even know HOW to estimate a trend or the name for the specific
> > tests you would need to perform here?
>
> The ones I'm aware of assume that the parameters consititute a complete
> model of a system where,

Wow... Dead wrong and only one sentence in.

THIS is a simple, straightforward issue. We have TWO measurements-
time (year) and temperature.

Now start over.

There is a larger issue, but it wasn't the subject of the part of the
discussion you are responding to.

[Greg Goss]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 8, 4:49 pm, wclod...@earthlink.net (William Clodius) wrote:
>

>>[Shawn Wilson]

>> > Are you a statistician?  Do you have more than one year of graduate
>> > education in statistics on top of more than a year of undergrad in the
>> > field?  No?  Then don't try that bullshit on ME...
>>
>> An ad hominem, and a particularly stupid example of it.
>
>The statistical anlysis was wrong. I pointed that out.

No you didn't. You claimed that you COULD, if someone paid you to.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Jun 9, 6:51 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 8, 4:49 pm, wclod...@earthlink.net (William Clodius) wrote:
>
> >>[Shawn Wilson]
> >> > Are you a statistician?  Do you have more than one year of graduate
> >> > education in statistics on top of more than a year of undergrad in the
> >> > field?  No?  Then don't try that bullshit on ME...
>
> >> An ad hominem, and a particularly stupid example of it.
>
> >The statistical anlysis was wrong.  I pointed that out.
>
> No you didn't.  You claimed that you COULD, if someone paid you to.

No. I pointed it out. What I claimed was that I could do so
*rigorously* if someone paid me too. You still don't need a light

meter to know the Sun has risen.

I will note here that you can't find anyone in the entire AGW crowd
who supports your claim. ANYONE could do this analysis. If your
claim were correct, the proper way to go about this would be to do the
analysis without these data points and show that there is no change in
the trend.

You, as a layman, could then merely google the analysis and post it.
I will even give you a magic word to search for-"spline".

BUT YOU DO NOT.

The statistical incompetence of the AGW crown is horrendous, as is
their personal integrity. You can throw shit, but never engage in
actual honest scientifc discourse.

[Jesper Lauridsen]

On 2013-05-20, Howard Hail <howart...@notmail.com> wrote:
> My supermarkets offer a tiny discount if I use reusable grocery bags, and I
> wish for the sake of old mother earth that I did, but I hate the cheap ones
> like this:

My supermarkets have always charged for bags so I reuse. I have no other
use for the bags so it's a 100% waste of money to buy one every time.
Different chains have different quality bags, so I make sure that when I
have to buy a new bag, it's from a place with sturdy plastic.

[Les Albert]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:52:13 +0000 (UTC), Jesper Lauridsen
<rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote:
>On 2013-05-20, Howard Hail <howart...@notmail.com> wrote:

>> My supermarkets offer a tiny discount if I use reusable grocery bags, and I
>> wish for the sake of old mother earth that I did, but I hate the cheap ones
>> like this:

>My supermarkets have always charged for bags so I reuse. I have no other
>use for the bags so it's a 100% waste of money to buy one every time.

If they are plastic then reuse them as garbage bags in the kitchen.

Les

[rroger]

On Jun 12, 6:12 pm, Les Albert <lalbe...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:52:13 +0000 (UTC), Jesper Lauridsen
>

> <rorsc...@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote:

> >On 2013-05-20, Howard Hail <howartholh...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >> My supermarkets offer a tiny discount if I use reusable grocery bags, and I
> >> wish for the sake of old mother earth that I did, but I hate the cheap ones
> >> like this:
> >My supermarkets have always charged for bags so I reuse. I have no other
> >use for the bags so it's a 100% waste of money to buy one every time.
>
> If they are plastic then reuse them as garbage bags in the kitchen.
>

For the standard style, 2 handled non-reusable plastic grocery store
bags that are printed with the store company's logo, I reuse them to
line those small to mini bathroom trash cans.

[Jesper Lauridsen]

I want (might even be required) to close the bags after filling them up.
Supermarket bags are useless at that. Better to buy dedicated trash bags
suited for the job. They're also 10x cheaper and use less plastic.

[Mac]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:19:54 +0000 (UTC), Jesper Lauridsen

<rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote:

>On 2013-06-12, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:52:13 +0000 (UTC), Jesper Lauridsen
>><rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote:
>>
>>>My supermarkets have always charged for bags so I reuse. I have no other
>>>use for the bags so it's a 100% waste of money to buy one every time.
>>
>>
>> If they are plastic then reuse them as garbage bags in the kitchen.
>
>I want (might even be required) to close the bags after filling them up.
>Supermarket bags are useless at that. Better to buy dedicated trash bags
>suited for the job. They're also 10x cheaper and use less plastic.

You appear to be guilty of bringing pracyical considerations into a
religious argument; fortunately, the death penalty for that has been
lifted in some places.

(BTW, the most common type of Usanian and Canuckistani pags can be
reliably closed, and are so damned flimsy that the plastic and cost
argument often goes the other way. PBAAVBP.)

[Hactar]

In article <8gshr8de645389vp6...@4ax.com>,

My wife made a bag bag, and we take in more bags than we use. And that's
with a bag every two days going to cans, and one or two per week going
for plastic recyclables.

--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al

[Les Albert]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:19:54 +0000 (UTC), Jesper Lauridsen

<rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote:
>On 2013-06-12, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:52:13 +0000 (UTC), Jesper Lauridsen
>><rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote:

>>>My supermarkets have always charged for bags so I reuse. I have no other
>>>use for the bags so it's a 100% waste of money to buy one every time.

>> If they are plastic then reuse them as garbage bags in the kitchen.

>I want (might even be required) to close the bags after filling them up.
>Supermarket bags are useless at that. Better to buy dedicated trash bags
>suited for the job. They're also 10x cheaper and use less plastic.

There is no prize for filling the bag with kitchen trash all the way
to the top. Leave a little room and use a twist tie to close it:

http://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/Staples/s0537297_sc7?$std$

Les

[Les Albert]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:52:19 -0400, ebenZ...@verizon.net (Hactar)
wrote:

>In article <8gshr8de645389vp6...@4ax.com>,
>Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:52:13 +0000 (UTC), Jesper Lauridsen
>> <rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote:
>> >On 2013-05-20, Howard Hail <howart...@notmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> My supermarkets offer a tiny discount if I use reusable grocery bags, and I
>> >> wish for the sake of old mother earth that I did, but I hate the cheap ones
>> >> like this:
>>
>> >My supermarkets have always charged for bags so I reuse. I have no other
>> >use for the bags so it's a 100% waste of money to buy one every time.
>>
>> If they are plastic then reuse them as garbage bags in the kitchen.
>
>My wife made a bag bag, and we take in more bags than we use. And that's
>with a bag every two days going to cans, and one or two per week going
>for plastic recyclables.

We have a bag bag, also.

Les

[rroger]

On Jun 12, 11:13 pm, Les Albert <lalbe...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:19:54 +0000 (UTC), Jesper Lauridsen
>

> <rorsc...@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote:

> >On 2013-06-12, Les Albert <lalbe...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:52:13 +0000 (UTC), Jesper Lauridsen
> >><rorsc...@sorrystofanet.dk> wrote:
> >>>My supermarkets have always charged for bags so I reuse. I have no other
> >>>use for the bags so it's a 100% waste of money to buy one every time.
> >> If they are plastic then reuse them as garbage bags in the kitchen.
> >I want (might even be required) to close the bags after filling them up.
> >Supermarket bags are useless at that. Better to buy dedicated trash bags
> >suited for the job. They're also 10x cheaper and use less plastic.
>
> There is no prize for filling the bag with kitchen trash all the way
> to the top.  Leave a little room and use a twist tie to close it:
>
> http://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/Staples/s0537297_sc7?$std$
>

I use draw string bags, no twist tie needed.

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

Before someone gave me some of the non-woven blah blah bags, I reused
the "non-reusable" bags as themselves, as well as using them as garbage
bags.

Just because someone didn't print "re-usable" on the side does not mean
that it is unlawful to re-use them.

Xho

[Nick Spalding]

Jesper Lauridsen wrote, in <kpaqid$gsq$1...@dont-email.me>
on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:52:13 +0000 (UTC):

For several years now there has been a government tax on plastic
shopping bags (currently 22 cents) so all the shops sell sturdy fabric
ones for about one Euro. They get used for all sorts of things – I have
seen them used as carry-on bags at the airport and one from my local
supermarket chain was observed on the arm of a tourist gazing on the
Pyramids.
--
Nick Spalding

[Nick Spalding]

Les Albert wrote, in <8gshr8de645389vp6...@4ax.com>
on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:12:13 -0700:

No, I get bio-degradable ones for general garbage and compostable for
food waste that goes in the compost bin.
--
Nick Spalding

[rroger]

On Jun 12, 10:51 pm, Xho Jingleheimerschmidt <xhos...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I know, but you hopefully "got" what I meant. I just used that word
as descriptive term for describing the type of bags that I was talking
about.

[Mac]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:17:51 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
wrote:

Have you considered using dog dropping bags instead? Smaller,
(sometimes) cheaper, and less visible if they haven't fully broken
down yet. Dunno if they are available in your neck of the woods,
though.

[bill van]

In article <61rjr8116foc2d1bg...@4ax.com>,

For compost, I don't use bags at all. I have a small plastic bin (about
half a cubic foot) that lives beside the kitchen sink. When it's full,
or getting ripe, I walk it out to the large compost bin behind our
building, empty it, wash it in the sink, and start the cycle over again.
I empty it about three times a week.

I use reusable bags for 95 per cent of my grocery shopping. I bring home
plastic bags once in a while when I forget my reusable bags, and I use
those to put out returnable empty bottles for binners ("dumpster
divers") to pick up from the lane.

bill

[Nick Spalding]

Mac wrote, in <61rjr8116foc2d1bg...@4ax.com>
on Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:01:16 -0700:

The bio-d and compostable bags come in several sizes here and I get ones
to suit the containers.
--
Nick Spalding

[Bob]

On Jun 13, 12:01 pm, Mac <anmcc...@alumdotwpi.edu> wrote:

> Have you considered using dog dropping bags instead?

Yes, but once you pound them out flat, it's hard to get dog duties to
hold together well enough.