myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Exxon in California
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vientomas wrote:
Hey Teach aka "Techno" read the article I linked. Plastic recycling is a hoax! Wake TF up! It's a scam that you and I bought into due to Big Oil bullshit.


Then why the CRV in California? What a waste of time, effort and money if nothing gets recycled. Why are cities and municipalities encouraging everyone to recycle plastics if they don't recycle any of it? Wouldn't it be much more cost effective to just dump the plastic in in the trash bin and not mix it into the recycle bin with the paper, aluminum and glass? Are the majority of municipalities in the country willing to waste money just to make the citizens feel good about recycling?

If the recycling of plastic doesn't happen, what's the alternative? it's either landfills or go back to glass, aluminum or treated paper.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
vientomas wrote:
Hey Teach aka "Techno" read the article I linked. Plastic recycling is a hoax! Wake TF up! It's a scam that you and I bought into due to Big Oil bullshit.


Then why the CRV in California? What a waste of time, effort and money if nothing gets recycled. Why are cities and municipalities encouraging everyone to recycle plastics if they don't recycle any of it? Wouldn't it be much more cost effective to just dump the plastic in in the trash bin and not mix it into the recycle bin with the paper, aluminum and glass? Are the majority of municipalities in the country willing to waste money just to make the citizens feel good about recycling?

If the recycling of plastic doesn't happen, what's the alternative? it's either landfills or go back to glass, aluminum or treated paper.


An aha moment for the troll from North Carolina. I guess he doesn’t now about the historic role of the mob in trash collection. Or the impacts.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/microplastics
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac, what's your point? We all know about micro plastics.

Mac said: "historic role of the mob in trash collection." Please elaborate.

Where do you want plastics to go? Recycle? To landfills? Eliminate? Or what?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
Mac, what's your point? We all know about micro plastics.

Mac said: "historic role of the mob in trash collection." Please elaborate.

Where do you want plastics to go? Recycle? To landfills? Eliminate? Or what?


My point is that marketing oil for plastic products that end up in the ocean is unethical. Only one of the reasons that corporations are not people.

What do I want? Reducing the use of plastics from frivolous things like light weight bags and packaging that could be accomplished with less environmental impact by using organically based materials--paper and cardboard--that while irritating when thrown away carelessly, don't last in the ocean for decades. For more responsible use of plastics, include a disposal fee that pays for local governments costs for collection and clean-up. The simplest way to do this, advocated decades ago by Jimmy Carter, is a carbon tax. It helps pay for the externalities of carbon use rather than simply shift those costs to the public.

We also need more rigorous product testing. Right now we have tire dust that kills salmon at ridiculously low levels. We should never have allowed such additives to be used, and the tire manufacturers should pay for the treatment that prevents this.

https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/12/03/tire-related-chemical-largely-responsible-for-adult-coho-salmon-deaths-in-urban-streams/

Contrary to conservative belief systems. the market is not perfect--and nobody in business really wants head to head competition.

The mob? Read up a little. They ran the landfill at Daly City near San Francisco where garbage eroded into the ocean. They ran garbage collections in New York, and seem to be the model for all of Trump's companies.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/30738/why-mob-often-tied-garbage-industry
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MikeLaRonde



Joined: 11 Jun 2001
Posts: 768

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So sorry to be the interrupting broken record, but I see 2 familiar problems here:

1. There are simply too many pesky human consumers of plastic contained goods, especially in the USA;

2. Most of them have an irrational fear of germs, leading to an unwarranted demand for disposable, "sterile" containers. And the marketeers recognize this, because they are mostly indoctrinated germophobes themselves.

But don't worry, our fearless global leaders are working on ONE of these root causes.

special delivery for agent McRiffRaff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg-G1E1UwAY
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A brain is a terrible thing to pickle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MikeLaRonde



Joined: 11 Jun 2001
Posts: 768

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Right now we have tire dust that kills salmon at ridiculously low levels. We should never have allowed such additives to be used, and the tire manufacturers should pay for the treatment that prevents this.

https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/12/03/tire-related-chemical-largely-responsible-for-adult-coho-salmon-deaths-in-urban-streams/

Wow, nice grandiose story.

Meanwhile, for over a century there has been a very toxic dust related to "big oil", harmful to all life, and we don't hear anyone calling to ban it. At least not in most of the US. Live near a stop sign? Your health may be in danger.

So how come nothing is done? Can't you left-wingers take on BIG OIL?

OOPS. Big Pharma rules all, and they love asthma, bronchitis, etc. Because it sells more drugs and vaccines!

And one thing you don't hear the WEF crowd pushing for is mandatory magnetic regenerative braking (even though it is technically possible even with ICE vehicles). No, those evil geniuses would rather make self-driving cars and computer-brain interfaces.

But that's not the point. The reality is that a world of practical electric-only cars is not even remotely possible at current population levels. There's not enough mineable lithium on the planet!
The Utopian world of strictly renewable energy only works with a dramatically reduced population .. of drivers, anyway. Of course, it might also work when only the upper echelon gets to own and operate their own automobiles.

And that, ladies and germs, is the closest thing to what the WEF/WHO/UN/WB/IBS wants to immediately accomplish: to eliminate private automobile ownership for most. Kind of like eliminating private land ownership, a related goal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coachg



Joined: 10 Sep 2000
Posts: 3549

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2023 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:

I know that Calif. has a new recycling bill to promote/move toward more recycling of plastics, but making plastics recyclable doesn't mean that they will actually be recycled.


Good point. Just like the U.S. has been taking advantage of third world countries lower standards, it is a fact that California has been taking advantage of conservative states lower standards to dump toxic waste in their landfills so it isn’t a far reach to expect us to dump plastics there as well.

Coachg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2023 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Last week's New Yorker had an article about new research frontiers in cancer. It noted new work by Charles Swanton showing a strong link to particulate matter. The underlying article was published in Nature in April, and here is the Abstract.

Quote:
Abstract
A complete understanding of how exposure to environmental substances promotes cancer formation is lacking. More than 70 years ago, tumorigenesis was proposed to occur in a two-step process: an initiating step that induces mutations in healthy cells, followed by a promoter step that triggers cancer development1. Here we propose that environmental particulate matter measuring ≤2.5 μm (PM2.5), known to be associated with lung cancer risk, promotes lung cancer by acting on cells that harbour pre-existing oncogenic mutations in healthy lung tissue. Focusing on EGFR-driven lung cancer, which is more common in never-smokers or light smokers, we found a significant association between PM2.5 levels and the incidence of lung cancer for 32,957 EGFR-driven lung cancer cases in four within-country cohorts. Functional mouse models revealed that air pollutants cause an influx of macrophages into the lung and release of interleukin-1β. This process results in a progenitor-like cell state within EGFR mutant lung alveolar type II epithelial cells that fuels tumorigenesis. Ultradeep mutational profiling of histologically normal lung tissue from 295 individuals across 3 clinical cohorts revealed oncogenic EGFR and KRAS driver mutations in 18% and 53% of healthy tissue samples, respectively. These findings collectively support a tumour-promoting role for PM2.5 air pollutants and provide impetus for public health policy initiatives to address air pollution to reduce disease burden.


Of course, the burning of fossil fuels, and particularly diesel, is one of the major sources of both particulate matter and the presence of carcinogens in the air. I remember mrgybe railing about latte-sipping liberals, and objecting to even oxygenates in fuels that reduce particulates.

I'm glad that I don't have to spend my retirement denying that my career generated lung cancer and global warming. And I'm glad that there are people on this forum that actually post meaninful things instead of ad hominem attacks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Page 10 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group