Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: lyner on 22/01/2009 23:08:12
-
I realise that we should be cutting down on our wasteful use of resources but why is landfill volume a relevant quantity to the problem?
The amount of greenhouse gas produced depends upon what is actually put in there and on how the 'burying' process is carried out. It can't be just a matter of cubic metres, can it?
It looks to me as if the politicians have, yet again, come up with a method of measuring waste which is relatively easy to police but which really doesn't mean much at all.
What do you think?
-
Is this something going on in the UK? Can you just bring me up to date on what you're talking about?
-
Local authorities have to pay a fine if they dump 'too much' rubbish into landfill sites. EU regulations, I believe!!
I just remembered the island of rubbish in the film 'The Ladykillers'. Brilliant.
-
You've just reminded me of the film 'The Bed-Sitting Room'
Recommended
-
Maybe it is a problem because nobody wants to have a landfill in their town/back yard. I imagine that opening a new landfill is rather difficult due to resistance of the local population (or those pesky environmentalists). So, rationing the waste that goes in (by volume) ensures that an existing landfill may last longer. But that is just a guess.
-
So, rationing the waste that goes in (by volume) ensures that an existing landfill may last longer. But that is just a guess.
Aw c'mon. I think you can be a bit more positive about your deduction here; if you fill the hole more slowly then it will take longer to fill.
-
How long is one of those holes supposed to last? 10 yrs? 20 yrs?
-
I am sure that our waste and recycling regime could be far better managed. At present each local authority is doing it's own thing. What's more much of the recycling is handled in such a mish mash of ways, I seriously doubt it is doing anything to help prevent pollution.
In one area a used plastic bottle will be collected by a dedicated vehicle, in another area it will be collected along with tin/ally cans and in another it will be collected with all recycling. This bottle will be transported to the local waste/recycling transfer station. From there it will be transported to a bulk handler. From there to a sea port. From there to another sea port and on to a processing company, probably half way around the globe. The processed bottle, now in some other form, will then be shipped off to some other country for re-use in its new form. What was the environmental cost of all this?
Would it not be better if instead of the 5 vehicles we currently have here collecting our rubbish/trash we went back to just one vehicle collecting the whole lot, taking it to a processing centre for sorting into paper, ferrous & non-ferrous metals, glass, plastics and compostable by criminals serving sentences for serious crime?
Kill two birds with one stone. Efficiently sort our waste and punish crime. The waste which can be economically (both in monetary and environmental terms) dealt with treated accordingly and the rubbish incinerated.
-
taking it to a processing centre for sorting into paper, ferrous & non-ferrous metals, glass, plastics and compostable by criminals serving sentences for serious crime?
Sounds like a brilliant idea!
-
Isn't this the trouble with a "free market", where each council has various companies tending for the business? So you have literally hundreds of individual contracts rather than a single universal one. Another of Thatcher's great ideas...
-
So, rationing the waste that goes in (by volume) ensures that an existing landfill may last longer. But that is just a guess.
Aw c'mon. I think you can be a bit more positive about your deduction here; if you fill the hole more slowly then it will take longer to fill.
Yeah, I am positive about the speed the hole will fill up, but what if the landfill is to be closed by a certain date? Will it be closed (as promised) even though it is not full?
-
taking it to a processing centre for sorting into paper, ferrous & non-ferrous metals, glass, plastics and compostable by criminals serving sentences for serious crime?
Sounds like a brilliant idea!
Until the day the workers are less motivated than usual and don't do a great sorting job. And while they may have to sort the batch again, the amount of trash we manufacture while hoping that recycling will solve the problem of waste cannot be handled with human labor. In the USA we manufacture about 4 lbs of trash per person per day (including pre-consumer trash I think). That is roughly 1.4 billion pounds of trash per day! You cannot sort that with people who are employed/"asked" to do this.
-
If we were to run out of landfill space, then maybe someone would realise I was right all this time when I said we should simply dump it down old mines and backfill them.
Why does nobody listen to anything I say? (that's a rhetorical question)
-
How long is one of those holes supposed to last? 10 yrs? 20 yrs?
(that appears to be a rhetorical question too! [:-X])
-
I'm afraid your argument is full of holes.
-
That's rubbish!
-
I'm afraid your argument is full of holes.
Not if they are backfilled! [:P]
-
When people say that we are running out of landfill space they are referring to “void space” with the necessary consents for tipping. Landfill sites need consent from both the Planning authority and the Environment Agency. The first is to use the land for depositing waste and the other is to protect the environment from the waste.
Historically, old quarries were used for landfill sites. Up until the 1970’s most people burnt their waste on the fire (before plastic packaging became ubiquitous) and these tips were mainly composed of ash and glass. More recently the “waste stream” has changed and the hazards from landfill have increased. To help understand these hazards please excuse a digression into how a modern landfill works…
When enough waste is tipped into a site it starts to breakdown through various microbial processes. The rate at which it breaks down is mainly controlled by how wet it is and in drier countries after an initial putrefaction very little breakdown of the waste occurs. The “bugs” breakdown the waste via several anaerobic pathways, ultimately producing landfill gas, which is used on most sites to fuel electricity generators. Landfill gas is around 60% methane 40% carbon dioxide with trace compounds that give it a bad smell.
The other “product” of the bugs work (and moisture within the waste) is liquid known as leachate. The composition of leachate is highly variable as it depends on what waste has been deposited into the site. It often has high concentrations of heavy metals, phenols, aromatic hydrocarbons etc. but is always quite acidic. As a consequence nearly all landfill sites have been lined and capped to prevent rain and groundwater getting in and leachate and landfill gas getting out. Engineering of sites really started to happen in the 1980’s to prevent gas migrating from them and causing problems such as explosive atmospheres in confined spaces and emission of green house gases. Landfill gas was blamed for the unscheduled demolition of a bungalow in the village of Loscoe, Derbyshire in 1986. Lining also prevents leachate from contaminating local groundwater.
The cost of engineering a landfill site can be quite high to meet the standards of the Environment Agency and to contain the potential pollutants for a long time. The cost is in part dictated by the type of ground on which is it built, the ideal site would be an old clay pit (from brick making etc.) and the worst would be an old limestone quarry, as any leak of acidic leachate would eat away at the limestone and undermine the rest of the lining system.
In the UK, following various bits of legislation from Europe, government policy is to move away from landfill and to use resources more efficiently – such as increasing the amounts and types of material reused and recycled. As this is down to local councils, it can be a little bit patchy. It is also subject to the vicissitudes of the global market for recyclate.
The other driver is to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases specifically CH4 – which has a higher greenhouse potential than CO2. Having spent recent years desperately trying to maintain an adequate supply of landfill gas to fuel generators on a number of tips, I find it irritating when landfill is described as a major source of methane – it is too valuable to waste by releasing it directly into the air! Of course, using it as a fuel converts it into CO2 – but so does incineration (sorry, Energy From Waste as it is now called). Where it is uneconomic for power generation, landfill gas is flared generally using systems to keep the gas at 1000C for 3 seconds or more to ensure destruction of PCB’s dioxins etc.
However, the biggest problem with creating new sites is that no one wants them anywhere near them. It is fully understandable why people are “NIMBY” particularly when they have often suffered from disturbance due to the mineral working that creates the void anyway – whether this is noise, dust, or lorries going passed their house. Landfills are often bad neighbours as they can attract flies and rats as well as emitting noxious odours etc. This leads to existing sites asking for extensions or going back over areas. This contributes to the appearance of there mot being much landfill space left!
(sorry for length)
-
Useful info, Mazurka. Thanks.
As for the idea of holes in the ground - well well well.
-
Most of the plastic bottles are re-cycled in a plant in Cheshire. It is only the low quality plastics that go abroad. Hampshire incinerates most of its waste and uses it to make electricity.
The best thing to do is not to overconsume, compost what you can and buy things with as little packaging as you can. The really stupid thing is that although people are keen to re-cycle their waste they are not buying re-cycled stuff so there are stock piles of recycled paper!!!!
-
Where do you buy recycled stuff?
-
Centralised recycling does raise the issue of how much diesel is burnt hauling the recyclate to the recycling facility. A lot of paper is used by Aylseford newsprint in Kent - but if you conduct "life cycle analysis" there is a good argument to dispose of paper locally - as it breaks down readily in landfill or burns will in incinerators. Even better is to compress it into blocks and burn it on your own fire at home.
Following the law of unintended consequences, EU directives protecting small producers of wine and "appelation controlee" has meant that the UK is a net importer of glass. Prior to that wine was tankered in and bottled here. The other implication of this is that we get less wine per gallon of diesel used in hauling it.
Ironically shipping recyclate to China can be considered quite efficient - the boats and shipping containers have to go back anyway and the recyclate can go to make more things to be shipped back to the west, used and disposed of...
-
I realise that we should be cutting down on our wasteful use of resources but why is landfill volume a relevant quantity to the problem?
The amount of greenhouse gas produced depends upon what is actually put in there and on how the 'burying' process is carried out. It can't be just a matter of cubic metres, can it?
It looks to me as if the politicians have, yet again, come up with a method of measuring waste which is relatively easy to police but which really doesn't mean much at all.
What do you think?
I can assure you there is no shortage of landfill space.
It is just propaganda designed to make you more controllable by a mass media which instigates new trends for it's own perpetuity.
-
Hmmm... propaganda aye? Sounds like Hitler (will that get me in trouble) is running the country!!!
-
[:o]http://eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php (http://eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php)
-
My state of Arkansas is thinly populated and began selling access to a flat land fill area to other states a few years ago. Now that place looks like a small mountain. It's covered over with sod and has methane collectors all over. Arkansas gets lots of power from it. It is located just north east of Little Rock between Interstate 67 and Interstate 40.
-
Maybe it is a problem because nobody wants to have a landfill in their town/back yard. I imagine that opening a new landfill is rather difficult due to resistance of the local population (or those pesky environmentalists). So, rationing the waste that goes in (by volume) ensures that an existing landfill may last longer. But that is just a guess
.
You simply dump the waste in troughs adjacent to mountains.
All mountain ranges have troughs thousands of feet deep.Vast empty chasms into which vast amounts rubbish can be dumped.
I have never ever recycled,knowing this is a totally pointless exercise, any effort by me is insignificant in the larger schemes of things.
It is just a passing media fad.
-
Maybe it is a problem because nobody wants to have a landfill in their town/back yard. I imagine that opening a new landfill is rather difficult due to resistance of the local population (or those pesky environmentalists). So, rationing the waste that goes in (by volume) ensures that an existing landfill may last longer. But that is just a guess
.
You simply dump the waste in troughs adjacent to mountains.
All mountain ranges have troughs thousands of feet deep.Vast empty chasms into which vast amounts rubbish can be dumped.
And damage the very delicate ecosystems and water flow systems in these environments? What a stupid idea. There's loads of space in the ocean to dump rubbish too - shall we do that?
I have never ever recycled,knowing this is a totally pointless exercise, any effort by me is insignificant in the larger schemes of things.
It is just a passing media fad.
A passing media fad for the last 20 years? Not recycling makes you an irresponsible person. You do realise that recycling isn't just about saving landfill space?
-
Maybe it is a problem because nobody wants to have a landfill in their town/back yard. I imagine that opening a new landfill is rather difficult due to resistance of the local population (or those pesky environmentalists). So, rationing the waste that goes in (by volume) ensures that an existing landfill may last longer. But that is just a guess
.
You simply dump the waste in troughs adjacent to mountains.
All mountain ranges have troughs thousands of feet deep.Vast empty chasms into which vast amounts rubbish can be dumped.
And damage the very delicate ecosystems and water flow systems in these environments? What a stupid idea. There's loads of space in the ocean to dump rubbish too - shall we do that?
I have never ever recycled,knowing this is a totally pointless exercise, any effort by me is insignificant in the larger schemes of things.
It is just a passing media fad.
A passing media fad for the last 20 years? Not recycling makes you an irresponsible person. You do realise that recycling isn't just about saving landfill space?
I only became aware of this fad over the last 5 years which means it did not exist in the media in such high volumes.
No significant water flow exists in a frozen low sub-zero temperature environment as you well should know.
The ecosystems are insignificant and consist of little more than hardy lichen and algae,etc.
The chasm walls tend to isolate leakage and are very low temperature minimizing methane and toxic gas production from decay of said rubbish.
-
Maybe it is a problem because nobody wants to have a landfill in their town/back yard. I imagine that opening a new landfill is rather difficult due to resistance of the local population (or those pesky environmentalists). So, rationing the waste that goes in (by volume) ensures that an existing landfill may last longer. But that is just a guess
.
You simply dump the waste in troughs adjacent to mountains.
All mountain ranges have troughs thousands of feet deep.Vast empty chasms into which vast amounts rubbish can be dumped.
And damage the very delicate ecosystems and water flow systems in these environments? What a stupid idea. There's loads of space in the ocean to dump rubbish too - shall we do that?
I have never ever recycled,knowing this is a totally pointless exercise, any effort by me is insignificant in the larger schemes of things.
It is just a passing media fad.
A passing media fad for the last 20 years? Not recycling makes you an irresponsible person. You do realise that recycling isn't just about saving landfill space?
I only became aware of this fad over the last 5 years which means it did not exist in the media in such high volumes.
Well I've been aware of it in the media since I was in primary school, 20 years ago. Just because you didn't notice it before doesn't make it a fad.
No significant water flow exists in a frozen low sub-zero temperature environment as you well should know.
The ecosystems are insignificant and consist of little more than hardy lichen and algae,etc.
The chasm walls tend to isolate leakage and are very low temperature minimizing methane and toxic gas production from decay of said rubbish.
So only sub-zero mountain ranges? And the organisms that can cope with extreme environments are not important to us? And if the decay is slower, it means a lower amount of toxins whill be reduced but for much, much longer.
This is a bit like your idea of painting all roads white - you haven't really thought it through yet you are convinced that you are right.
Far better would be to reduce the amount of waste we produce in the first place, recycle what we can and extract energy from what we have to send to landfill.
-
I have never ever recycled,knowing this is a totally pointless exercise, any effort by me is insignificant in the larger schemes of things.
Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.
-
Far better would be to reduce the amount of waste we produce in the first place, recycle what we can and extract energy from what we have to send to landfill.
That is exactly it: What really matters is not wasting resources and materials. And by all means recycle glass and aluminum/aluminium. This is where it makes a lot of sense from an energy point of view. I really wish people would throw out less. In the USA most people think that recycling solves all problems. It makes the consumption of over-packaged products easier. People tend to forget that it takes energy and resources to recycle. Often more than you gain or save. With the exception of glass and aluminum.
But, extracting energy from waste (by burning it I assume)? Does not sound healthy.
-
some objects can be creatively reused. I am make a spectroscope from an old CD and other materials
-
The Waste Hierarchy (that technically is the basis of UK policy)is
Reduce
Reuse
Recycle
Disposal (whether incineration or landfill)
Whilst I disagree that recycling etc is pointless although agree it is not the panacea to waste probelms - the best way to not have waste in a landfill rot is not low temperature - as the bugs that break down the waste generate considerable heat - it is to keep the waste dry.
-
Far better would be to reduce the amount of waste we produce in the first place, recycle what we can and extract energy from what we have to send to landfill.
That is exactly it: What really matters is not wasting resources and materials. And by all means recycle glass and aluminum/aluminium. This is where it makes a lot of sense from an energy point of view. I really wish people would throw out less. In the USA most people think that recycling solves all problems. It makes the consumption of over-packaged products easier. People tend to forget that it takes energy and resources to recycle. Often more than you gain or save. With the exception of glass and aluminum.
But, extracting energy from waste (by burning it I assume)? Does not sound healthy.
The planet's size/volume compared to the amount of waste produced is huge.
The concerns expressed are of a a leisurely disposition
-
Far better would be to reduce the amount of waste we produce in the first place, recycle what we can and extract energy from what we have to send to landfill.
That is exactly it: What really matters is not wasting resources and materials. And by all means recycle glass and aluminum/aluminium. This is where it makes a lot of sense from an energy point of view. I really wish people would throw out less. In the USA most people think that recycling solves all problems. It makes the consumption of over-packaged products easier. People tend to forget that it takes energy and resources to recycle. Often more than you gain or save. With the exception of glass and aluminum.
But, extracting energy from waste (by burning it I assume)? Does not sound healthy.
The planet's size/volume compared to the amount of waste produced is huge.
The concerns expressed are of a a leisurely disposition
You may have noticed that humans are NOT using the planet's volume but rather it's surface. To add to that, only a portion of this surface is not under water. Of that land surface only a fraction can be used comfortably and without the help of technology. The atmosphere is rather thin if you look at the big picture. Burning trash results in some of the most toxic substances the world has seen in the air, water, and soil. While it is completely true that our planet is huge in comparison to the VOLUME of trash produced, this statement neglect to see that our living space is limited, getting smaller all the time, and does not consider the QUALITY of the trash or toxic by-products.
Leisurly disposition = display laziness
My concerns reflect laziness? I would say that not worrying about what humans do is a reflection of laziness. I would say that your refusal to recycle anything is a reflection of a lazy attitude. I would say that it is lazy to blindly and with little worry accept that it will be all OK.
But maybe your comment was not directed at what I wrote. It seems like this, but it makes no sense. I am willing to err on the side of caution. Please explain your rationale.
-
NSM
The planet's size/volume compared to the amount of waste produced is huge.
Another sweeping statement. You may as well compare the amount of waste produced with the mass of the Solar System. What counts is the effect on the bit we actually inhabit. Without some degree of care, the environment would / will have unsafe levels of all sorts of compounds.
Also, the valleys between mountains will, with very few exceptions, have a lot of water runoff, due to rain (which tends to fall on mountains). That water can leach unspecified grot, from anything dumped there, into rivers which will then arrive back on our back doorsteps. Is that likely to be a suitable solution?
Why not cut down on grand statements and start thinking a bit more intelligently. Perhaps you could do a few more "elementary calculations".
-
"You may have noticed that humans are NOT using the planet's volume but rather it's surface".
How do you explain skyscrapers and multi story houses and tall buildings and mining and basements?
Elementary calculations indicate what i said earlier that mountain chasms and troughs are more then capable of absorbing all the waste produced for the next 10000 years with plenty of room to spare.
They are the best places to dump all waste as the low temperatures solidify and inactivate the waste as is well known low temperatures slow down multiple chemical reactions and production of methane and other toxic wastes which leak into the water table.
Your much vaunted concern about the ecology of a few micro organisms in sub zero mountain chasms is irrelevant compared to the ecological damage caused by cutting vast areas of forestry harbouring vastly more life forms.
Are you worried when you walk you are squashing/killing micro organisms ?
A additional,but very insignificant,benefit is that it would level the land at these places and reduce the distance which foolish mountain climbers would fall when they lose their grip.I have no sympathy for these people as they seem to be adrenalin junkies,jaded with life and putting other people,like rescuers,at risk for their own selfish adrenalin drug rush.
-
How do you explain skyscrapers and multi story houses and tall buildings and mining and basements?
What sort of percentage of the radius of the Earth does a skyscraper or deep mine represent? By your argument, when you walk upright, you head can't be considered as being on the surface.
On mountains that are enough for your 'scheme' there is still ample precipitation. Have you heard of glaciers? They may be a bit slow but they transfer the contents of high valleys down to the bottom and then they melt - delivering a load of the rubbish you plan to put up there. Bearing in mind the mass of snow / ice, could you restrain them?. Why do you think these high valleys are not used for storing nuclear waste? People have actually thought about the options, already.
-
Notwithstanding the overall wrongness of the concept, let alone the cost (financially and environmentally) of hauling all our waste into permanently frozen mountains;
The radius of the earth is around 6400km. Deepest mine 3.5km Tallest tower 800m. Mathematically human activity amounts to 0.07% of the earths radius
I would also like to point out that as a member of a UK Mountain Rescue Team, I voluntarily rescue people for my own selfish adrenaline drug rush [:P]
-
The radius of the earth is around 6400km. Deepest mine 3.5km Tallest tower 800m. Mathematically human activity amounts to 0.07% of the earths radius
Thank you. I was hoping someone could come up with that number. I knew it would be ridiculously low. For all practical purposes we inhabit the surface.
-
Your much vaunted concern about the ecology of a few micro organisms in sub zero mountain chasms is irrelevant compared to the ecological damage caused by cutting vast areas of forestry harbouring vastly more life forms.
Are you worried when you walk you are squashing/killing micro organisms ?
I never mentioned a single word about microorganisms. Please pay attention.
-
I would also like to point out that as a member of a UK Mountain Rescue Team, I voluntarily rescue people for my own selfish adrenaline drug rush.
Who knows, you may be called to rescue NSM one day when he's emptying his bins!
-
Your much vaunted concern about the ecology of a few micro organisms in sub zero mountain chasms is irrelevant compared to the ecological damage caused by cutting vast areas of forestry harbouring vastly more life forms.
Are you worried when you walk you are squashing/killing micro organisms ?
I never mentioned a single word about microorganisms. Please pay attention.
I think he was referring to me. I hold that the species present in extreme environments are as important if not more so than those in more moderate environments. This is partly because we can learn a lot from them, and partly be cause they play an important role in their niche.
NSM thinks they don't matter at all.
-
How do you explain skyscrapers and multi story houses and tall buildings and mining and basements?
What sort of percentage of the radius of the Earth does a skyscraper or deep mine represent? By your argument, when you walk upright, you head can't be considered as being on the surface.
On mountains that are enough for your 'scheme' there is still ample precipitation. Have you heard of glaciers? They may be a bit slow but they transfer the contents of high valleys down to the bottom and then they melt - delivering a load of the rubbish you plan to put up there. Bearing in mind the mass of snow / ice, could you restrain them?. Why do you think these high valleys are not used for storing nuclear waste? People have actually thought about the options, already.
How is frozen waste going to climb out of a chasm ?
-
Where are these 'chasms' to which you refer?
I think your view of the topography of mountain ranges may be a bit misguided. The few locations you refer to are very inaccessible. How much do you think it would cost to transport all your waste up there?
Can you imagine Holland paying Switzerland to look after all its waste? Get real
-
Where are these 'chasms' to which you refer?
I think your view of the topography of mountain ranges may be a bit misguided. The few locations you refer to are very inaccessible. How much do you think it would cost to transport all your waste up there?
Can you imagine Holland paying Switzerland to look after all its waste? Get real
chasms are not "up there". AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
they are "down there". VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
you expense argument is easily refuted after all waste is transported today all around the world in ships/tankers.
Every country has mountains and therefore chasms.The waste is simply dumped into the chasm and will cost less then today as no processing needs to be done.
Do you understand peaks and valleys with a line through the middle?
-
'Frozen' implies 'up there' - either going North or ascending into mountains.
"all (domestic) waste" is not transported in supertankers - that was the point of my initial post. It is buried not far from where it is produced.
Perhaps you could post a map of Holland with the 'mountains' marked on it. Presumably these mountains which you propose to use have a minimum acceptable height. What would that height be and how many countries actually have chasms with permafrost in them?
Some references might help to support your sweeping statements.
-
It is true that significant amounts of waste (recyclate) plastic, metal etc is shipped around the world - in the majority of cases back to China where it is recycled. Contrary to what is written in the more sensationlist media, no domestic waste is shipped across the world.
This is economic solely because otherwise the ships and the containers that delivered goods to the west that originated in China would otherwise be travelling back empty. Until recently, China's demand for raw materials was greater than could be provided by virgin resources, so the value of recyclate was high.
There are no "chasms" in the UK which would be cold enough all year round to prevent anaerobic decay - and as I posted above - as soon as the bugs get going it is very difficult to stop them as they are exothermic.
-
It is true that significant amounts of waste (recyclate) plastic, metal etc is shipped around the world - in the majority of cases back to China where it is recycled. Contrary to what is written in the more sensationlist media, no domestic waste is shipped across the world.
This is economic solely because otherwise the ships and the containers that delivered goods to the west that originated in China would otherwise be travelling back empty. Until recently, China's demand for raw materials was greater than could be provided by virgin resources, so the value of recyclate was high.
There are no "chasms" in the UK which would be cold enough all year round to prevent anaerobic decay - and as I posted above - as soon as the bugs get going it is very difficult to stop them as they are exothermic.
Miss sophie still does not understand what a chasm is.She thinks it up a mountain or that a mountain is required for it to exist.I suggest you study geography and topography.
I have checked Holland and it is not perfectly flat at all as you suggest being riddled with chasms,gullies and mineshafts.
In any case Holland is not the world or any other country.
You are quite correct in being wrong in stating that no chasms exist in the uk which are cold.
I suggest you try visiting these chasms with a thermometer.
I fear the reason is you and miss sophie are obsessed with attacking the idea is that you did not think of this solution yourself and thus have to expend great energy on dissing someone who has the boldness and vision to break the mould of conventional thinking.
-
I fear the reason is you and miss sophie are obsessed with attacking the idea is that you did not think of this solution yourself and thus have to expend great energy on dissing someone who has the boldness and vision to break the mould of conventional thinking.
I'm afraid not - they're attacking the idea because it is ill thought out and useless. And Sophiecentaur is a man.
-
...
There are no "chasms" in the UK which would be cold enough all year round to prevent anaerobic decay - and as I posted above - as soon as the bugs get going it is very difficult to stop them as they are exothermic.
Miss sophie still does not understand what a chasm is.She thinks it up a mountain or that a mountain is required for it to exist.I suggest you study geography and topography.
I have checked Holland and it is not perfectly flat at all as you suggest being riddled with chasms,gullies and mineshafts.
In any case Holland is not the world or any other country.
You are quite correct in being wrong in stating that no chasms exist in the UK which are cold.
I suggest you try visiting these chasms with a thermometer.
I fear the reason is you and miss sophie are obsessed with attacking the idea is that you did not think of this solution yourself and thus have to expend great energy on dissing someone who has the boldness and vision to break the mould of conventional thinking.
Ha Ha Ha,
No, the reason that I am "attacking the idea" is that most of my working life has been spent in waste management and particularly landfill - as a rule I tend to make comment on internet fora from knowledge and experience. If I do make a speculative post, I will make it clear and when rational comment from those better informed than I "diss" it, I will accept being "dissed" with good grace.
The idea of tipping into chasms or old quarries and mines has been used extensively in the past. However, rightly, environmental standards have moved on with increasing knowledge of how things (like landfill sites) work. Historically "dilute and disperse" was the philosophy behind tipping - any pollutants would be diluted down by rain fall/ groundwater and dispersed through the environment so as to be unnoticeable. This approach has been discredited scientifically as heavy metals and certain organic compounds are so persistent / ecotoxic as to pose a risk to human health.
I can also assure you from personal experience that I do not need to take a thermometer into any chasms in the UK to know that they do not remain cold enough all year round to prevent the bugs starting to anaerobically break down waste. There is one location high in the Cairngorms where snow has occasionally persisted all year round. That particular location would not be able to accommodate the total UK waste arising, even if every possible item was removed for reuse or recycling. For a bit of context, in 2004 a total (before recycling) 335000000 tonnes of waste was generated in the UK
Even if (in another country perhaps) a suitably cold chasm/ gully/ mine could be identified, the cost of haulage (however this is achieved) would be significantly greater than the cost of engineering a solution (whether landfill, recycling plant or incinerator (or all 3)) would be far lower.
-
Maybe we can get back to whether we will run out of landfill space.
I could imagine living next to or even above a landfill if it was filled with something that I do not object to. The problem with landfills is that they contain toxins that may end up in my food or water, that they contain materials that (for all practical purposes) are around forever and I have to look at them, and that it stinks. If organic materials are removed (and composted as they should), if no toxic materials end up in the land fill, and if materials deteriorate "prettily", I assume the only objection would be the flow of garbage trucks all day long. New landfills are safe only as long as they are designed and built by people who care.
I saw a movie recently that made me think about the garbage issue. "Mon Oncle" by Jacques Tati. It plays in the 1950s and there is a lot of garbage around. Some of the garbage is old-fashioned and returns to nature quite soon. It got swept up, dumped somewhere, and soon it was gone. The new, modern garbage was a bunch of plastic hose that was dumped into the river. Had it not been a movie, it probably would still be there.
I often tell my students that each plastic diaper they ever wore still exists. Probably even the plastic diapers I wore. It makes them think and appreciate the longevity of some plastics in our environment.
If we can reduce what we throw away dramatically and bury only what nature can deal with in a few years, we would have fewer problems with land fills. Maybe the problem is not the landfill as such, but rather our methods of making products from materials that should not be buried or don't go away. Because there used to be a "away".
-
The best landfill I ever saw in a film was the Garbage Island in The Ladykillers with Tom Hanks. But it wasn't in a 'chasm'.
-
i think that instead of using and polluting the land we should dump all of our rubbish into space. I know it would cost a lot but if NASA would become a bit more eco-friendly then they would do it for free. I also know that it can be done because NASA launches lots of successfull shuttles every month.
What does everyone else think?
-
i think that instead of using and polluting the land we should dump all of our rubbish into space. I know it would cost a lot but if NASA would become a bit more eco-friendly then they would do it for free. I also know that it can be done because NASA launches lots of successfull shuttles every month.
What does everyone else think?
It would take an enormous amount of energy though.
-
It looks to me as if the politicians have, yet again, come up with a method of measuring waste which is relatively easy to police but which really doesn't mean much at all.
What do you think?
-
NASA couldn't even manage to dump their own rubbish up there. Getting a few kg of payload up there costs thousands of quid.
-
but NASA could take it up with the shuttle and dump it when they are out of the earths gravitational pull.
But on the other hand i suppose that would be a heck of a lot more fuel needed for the weight wouldn't it.
-
There are no free rides on the shuttle - even if you carry your toffee wrapper up in your pocket!
-
We already seem to be getting into trouble regarding space junk. We already are tracking thousands of pieces of junk to make sure it is not hitting anything valuable and try really hard to not lose anything in addition to what is already up there out of control. Small bits and pieces of trash zipping around at 20,000 mph is not good for satellites or space craft of any form. We would lock ourselves in and make leaving the planet much more dangerous and difficult than it already is. I assume the two satellites that collided recently added a good load to the problem.
Totally unpractical. If kilograms are VERY expensive, imagine how expensive the 4 pounds of trash are that are produced by every US-American EVERY day. And that is just talking about lower orbits.
-
...
There are no "chasms" in the UK which would be cold enough all year round to prevent anaerobic decay - and as I posted above - as soon as the bugs get going it is very difficult to stop them as they are exothermic.
Miss sophie still does not understand what a chasm is.She thinks it up a mountain or that a mountain is required for it to exist.I suggest you study geography and topography.
I have checked Holland and it is not perfectly flat at all as you suggest being riddled with chasms,gullies and mineshafts.
In any case Holland is not the world or any other country.
You are quite correct in being wrong in stating that no chasms exist in the UK which are cold.
I suggest you try visiting these chasms with a thermometer.
I fear the reason is you and miss sophie are obsessed with attacking the idea is that you did not think of this solution yourself and thus have to expend great energy on dissing someone who has the boldness and vision to break the mould of conventional thinking.
Ha Ha Ha,
No, the reason that I am "attacking the idea" is that most of my working life has been spent in waste management and particularly landfill - as a rule I tend to make comment on internet fora from knowledge and experience. If I do make a speculative post, I will make it clear and when rational comment from those better informed than I "diss" it, I will accept being "dissed" with good grace.
The idea of tipping into chasms or old quarries and mines has been used extensively in the past. However, rightly, environmental standards have moved on with increasing knowledge of how things (like landfill sites) work. Historically "dilute and disperse" was the philosophy behind tipping - any pollutants would be diluted down by rain fall/ groundwater and dispersed through the environment so as to be unnoticeable. This approach has been discredited scientifically as heavy metals and certain organic compounds are so persistent / ecotoxic as to pose a risk to human health.
I can also assure you from personal experience that I do not need to take a thermometer into any chasms in the UK to know that they do not remain cold enough all year round to prevent the bugs starting to anaerobically break down waste. There is one location high in the Cairngorms where snow has occasionally persisted all year round. That particular location would not be able to accommodate the total UK waste arising, even if every possible item was removed for reuse or recycling. For a bit of context, in 2004 a total (before recycling) 335000000 tonnes of waste was generated in the UK
Even if (in another country perhaps) a suitably cold chasm/ gully/ mine could be identified, the cost of haulage (however this is achieved) would be significantly greater than the cost of engineering a solution (whether landfill, recycling plant or incinerator (or all 3)) would be far lower.
Mazurka you are wrong if you think experience qualifies you to reject the idea.
It is well known that older people tend to be ossified in their thought patterns and are resistant to any new ideas, therefore following this ingrained mind set,you dismiss the idea as it would force to adjust the thought patterns in your head into new pathways.This happens to older people.
Remember Clarke's Law?
You only have to look at any map and see it is full of mountainous areas with chasms adjacent in every country.
Refuse does not have to be transported at all.No danger of leakage as most rubbish is encased in plastic bags anyway.
I fear that established thought patterns have moulded your thinking similar to the luddite brigade of years gone by.
-
Refuse does not have to be transported at all.No danger of leakage as most rubbish is encased in plastic bags anyway.
ENCASED in plastic bags?
"encased : to enclose in or as if in a case"
Now there is a serious way to stop leakage. These plastic bags things will stop anything. They never leak. They never get punctured. No wild animal (mouse, squirrel, crow, etc.) can tear them open. They get handled carefully when they are loaded, transported, dumped, and are bulldozed in place. They don't rip when dumped onto sharp objects, e.g. a branch. They don't blow open when something heavy falls on them. Great stuff. Impenetrable basically.
Mazurka you are wrong if you think experience qualifies you to reject the idea.
It is well known that older people tend to be ossified in their thought patterns and are resistant to any new ideas, therefore following this ingrained mind set,you dismiss the idea as it would force to adjust the thought patterns in your head into new pathways.This happens to older people.
(...)
I fear that established thought patterns have moulded your thinking similar to the luddite brigade of years gone by.
NSM, I am not a great friend of people putting their years of experience forward to block new ideas without justification. However, it seems your idea is not thought out well and it has been explained why. It is impractical. It is expensive. It is dangerous. In addition, it is barbaric and uncivilized in my opinion. We cannot get new landfills approved locally and you are talking about hauling it long-distance to some chasms somewhere to stay forever. In the USA alone that is around 17 billion tons of garbage every year. It would not find approval unless it happens to some developed country where the rights of the people who live nearby are not considered.
Just because people don't go for your idea does not mean they are inflexible or stubborn. Just because your idea runs into opposition or counter arguments does not mean it is progressive or even good. Just like experience alone does not equal wisdom, novelty does not equal quality. You will have to convince the people here and so far that seems to not have happened. Don't make other people (and your perceptions regarding their mind-set) responsible for your inability to convince.
-
I am glad that your suggestions are evolving; it is the plastic bags that now make it a sensible idea, rather than the cold.
There is an irony in this, as modern landfill sites often use a Flexible Membrane Liner (FML)as part of their construction. The FML is constructed from HDPE plastic, welded into one piece. When the site is capped off, another FML is laid over the top and also welded into place to prevent emissions from the site and to allow th inevitable landfill gas and leachate (water that has percoloated through to be managed). In effect the waste is encpasulted in a giant plastic bag.
I am unsure what part of your suggestion you think is novel or innovative? As I posted it is known as "dilute and disperse" and is no longer considered to be environmentally or socially acceptable. In the UK, standards and waste disposal philosphy were re-examined following a rather unfortunate incident. Tipping waste into an unlinned disused quarry in Derbyshire, England near the village of Loscoe lead to landfill gas migrating from the site and building up in a small house. The owners came back, switched on a light and the resulting explosion leveled the house.
I am also unsure what you mean by "does not have to be transported at all", unless you are suggesting that I just throw my bagged waste out of my back door and have nothing more to do with it.
I am sorry if I came across as arrogantly dismissing your ideas due to my knowledge and experience. I have seen a considerable evolution in waste disposal and understand why (and indeed embrace) certain new technologies/ approaches have been developed. Your idea as you have expressed it is nothing new, as i have tried to explain in earlier posts. It is all very well alluding to Clarke’s Law, but in this particular case, Einstein’s “standing on the shoulders of giants” is more apt...
-
Just to let you know, NobodySavedMe has been banned for consitently causing offense on the forum, and so will not be replying. His idea had been comprehensively discredited anyway, so it's no great loss to this thread.