Comments

Dear Mike Cook, I structured my arguments as objectively as i could attempting to address the issues at hand and respond to those raised. Furthermore, I provided references for those of you to look into the matter further. As your response was essentially an attack i will respond to your points yet refrain from your emotional delivery. The "we" vs. The "I" I specifically stated that it would not be possible to recycle into 32 containers as for the US that would be logistically impossible. However, i did provide the link to a company who is providing incentives the public to recycle through a similar structure compared to airline miles. So, would you recycle more if someone was paying you??? When you say that you dispute the factual validity of issues dear to the heart of people like "me"... I presume you are referring to global warming... which was not the core foundation of this discussion. Furthermore, this thread forum is not the scene to be educating people on global warming. The issue was specific to Municipal Solid Waste so i will remain consistent with the topic. I don't care what car you buy but please look into the facts on your own time. Safe minimum level of air pollution? This statement does not help your argument at all. Fight pollution with dilution! What spacial area of air do you need to dilute an incineration plant with? Furthermore, what about all those individuals in the surrounding area outside of your supposed "dilution area". In the general air circulation there are over a 100 different Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) present, all of which either carcinogenic, mutagenic, and /or teratogenic. On this topic, there is a whole new medical branch called Nano Pathology to understand the effects of these neurotoxins and furanes. The studies to date show significant health issues ranging from disfigured babies to young adults under the age of 20 getting brain tumors and thyroid cancer. So, maybe you don't live close to one and simply don't care...i can not argue to that standpoint. Billions are spent in abestos removal as a preventive measure to ensure that no further people get sick from its toxic nature. In NO sense am i making an argument against plastics! Human kind relies significantly on its use and implementation across the diverse range of its demand. All of your examples are thus futile. This is not about medical waste it is about domestic waste. If a company (like that mentioned before) essentially pays (incentives) the individual to recycle plastic, paper/cardboard, aluminum, glass and anything else possible that is great. You don't have to join a program that disrupts your "life-style". But what will be the life style of your children and their children. Mathematics vs. Economics You made one correct statement - we are not going to run out of landfill room at least not in this century. However, as those landfills in use today reach capacity, it is very expensive for the waste mgmt providers to source and permit new locations and even more expensive for them to restructure their vertically integrated value chain to bring the waste to those sites now 100 - 200 miles further from the cities then the last site. Thus, these trucks have to drive much further to do the same thing. I would much rather that landfills are used and methane collection that arises is contained and reprocessed into energy. That is the lessor of the bad. I said in the beginning that i would refrain from emotional delivery but your generalization of the American Dream to include a toxic polluted environment is simply gross misuse of the people's dream. Nonetheless, "dreams" are individual and maybe yours are distorted. I don't understand what your point of the recent elections. If anything, it showed the American dream. More importantly, i think the Obama presidency will provide enormous incentives (in the billions) for energy efficiency and other environmental programs. Always open for discussion Thanks!

After millions of dollars investment in PR these companies are rephrasing their technologies to include more public friendly names like Plasma Arch, Gasification, Pyrolysis etc. They are continuously justifying their technologies as green and producing gas for energy etc. This is all absurd and i am shocked that POPSCI does not include a disclaimer about the issues that are involved. All of these thermal treatment processes are essentially incineration process. So the beginning stage is special but all the stages that follow are identical to combustion. the only difference is that they are igniting the gases from breaking down the waste rather than the waste itself directly. For those of you who are really interested in this please follow the link to see a speech by Paul Connett (SpeedyB - Ottawa def. does not need this process!!!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB5iOtxlpCs This is part 1 of three scenes and really gives you a detailed insight to the spin we are all being fed. Be Green - TrueGreen