7805 OK to get hot (do I need a heatsink)

[F. Bertolazzi]

Jasen Betts:

On 2011-01-02, F. Bertolazzi <TOGLIeset@MAIUSCOLEtdd.it> wrote:

Since the rivers that flow into the Mediterranean bring less water than
what evaporates, there is a strong incoming current, so none of our garbage
can get out, it can only get in. Despite of that, and of the fact that
about 100 million people live in it's drainage basin, we have nothing like
it in our sea.

http://people.seas.harvard.edu/%7Erobinson/PAPERS/encycirc.pdf
page 9, figure 2

Very interesting. Thanks. I did not know that there was also a cold current
flowing out of the Mediterranean. That means that even more surface
(warmer) water comes in than what needed to balance evaporation.

Since, as clearly illustrated also by the drawing you mention, this is
surface water, it is also the one that carries semi-floating plastic
debris, so the Mediterranean should gather even more garbage than what we
dump into it. But, luckily, we don't have any appreciable "garbage patch".

Go figure!

And probably neither you: "The size of the patch is unknown, as large items
readily visible from a boat deck are uncommon. Most debris consists of
small plastic particles suspended at or just below the surface, making it
impossible to detect by aircraft or satellite."

A unattributed quote from someone claiming ignorance is evidence of what
exactly?

Well, the source of that quotation is the one *you* linked.
If it's not of your taste, choose another one.

It smells like ozone hole (have you noticed that, once we have been forced
to change refrigerators, AC, and PCB wash, it mysteriously disappeared from
headlines?) or global warming.

That's because the ozone layer shows signs of recovering, good news
doesn't sell papers,

Or it's simply cycling as anything else. It's incredible how green are
conservative and bigheaded. They want everything to stay as it is, and they
believe they can do something about it.

It's probably due to a deep ignorance of this planet's history and
dimensions. We are just tiny viruses that can't do nothing, except for
being cyclically frozen and/or exterminated (twice 75%, twice 85%, once 96%
of living species) by the whims of this behemoth and the much bigger one we
circle around.

Exactly. The alternative,

Do You think there is only one alternative,

Definitely. The only recyclable stuff are metals and, in fact, most of
those are recycled since ever without any Government intervention.

The rest costs more energy than making it anew, more energy, untill we
convert to purely atomic (with hydroelectric to compensate daily
fluctuations) means more pollution.

Sure, we should get rid of glass containers, that cost more to recycle than
to make from sand, are heavy (so their transportation pollutes more) and
don't incinerate.

Most opposition to plasic bags isn't about landfills anyway, it's
about pollution.

To solve most of the problem we should stop to provide plastic stuff to
poor countries, that handle it very very poorly. It's more important the
survival of a marine tortoise than that of a bunch of men of inferior
races, right?

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2011-01-03, F. Bertolazzi <TOGLIeset@MAIUSCOLEtdd.it> wrote:

Jasen Betts:

On 2011-01-02, F. Bertolazzi <TOGLIeset@MAIUSCOLEtdd.it> wrote:

Since, as clearly illustrated also by the drawing you mention, this is
surface water, it is also the one that carries semi-floating plastic
debris, so the Mediterranean should gather even more garbage than what we
dump into it. But, luckily, we don't have any appreciable "garbage patch".

electrolux found plenty

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39870080/ns/world_news-world_environment/
top photo.

It smells like ozone hole (have you noticed that, once we have been forced
to change refrigerators, AC, and PCB wash, it mysteriously disappeared from
headlines?) or global warming.

That's because the ozone layer shows signs of recovering, good news
doesn't sell papers,

Or it's simply cycling as anything else.

it's possible that some other cause was putting all the chlorine up there
but I have not seen any convincing arguments

It's incredible how green are
conservative and bigheaded. They want everything to stay as it is, and they
believe they can do something about it.

on the other hand ignoring evidence is often profitable

It's probably due to a deep ignorance of this planet's history and
dimensions. We are just tiny viruses that can't do nothing, except for
being cyclically frozen and/or exterminated (twice 75%, twice 85%, once 96%
of living species) by the whims of this behemoth and the much bigger one we
circle around.

Exactly. The alternative,

Do You think there is only one alternative,

Definitely. The only recyclable stuff are metals and, in fact, most of
those are recycled since ever without any Government intervention.

what about composting?

Most opposition to plasic bags isn't about landfills anyway, it's
about pollution.

To solve most of the problem we should stop to provide plastic stuff to
poor countries, that handle it very very poorly. It's more important the
survival of a marine tortoise than that of a bunch of men of inferior
races, right?

looks like another straw-man to me





--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

 

[Don Klipstein]

In <1amymk2ohu588$.1bahbs56b8su5$.dlg@40tude.net>, F. Bertolazzi wrote
in part:

<SNIP to the point of recycling>

Definitely. The only recyclable stuff are metals and, in fact, most of
those are recycled since ever without any Government intervention.

The rest costs more energy than making it anew, more energy, untill we
convert to purely atomic (with hydroelectric to compensate daily
fluctuations) means more pollution.

Sure, we should get rid of glass containers, that cost more to recycle than
to make from sand, are heavy (so their transportation pollutes more) and
don't incinerate.

How about combined cost of making new and disposal in landfills? It
surely appears to me that recycling opponents don't like to count the cost
of trucking recyclable trash to landfills, or the even greater cost of
landfill dumping fees. (Landfill dumping fees are boosted by NIMBY types
that oppose everything and the many those of the "greenies" that oppose
too much of everything.)

There is also the matter that plastics are made from fossil fuels -
non-renewable natural resources that are limited in supply and which have
great demand. Recycling plastic trash or using it as fuel, as opposed to
dumping it in landfills, will make a dent in the demand for fossil fuels.

For that matter, I think that paper and wood trash should be used as
fuel (for electricity generating stations if nothing else) when recycling
is less economically favorable than that.
--
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[F. Bertolazzi]

Don Klipstein:

How about combined cost of making new and disposal in landfills? It
surely appears to me that recycling opponents don't like to count the cost
of trucking recyclable trash to landfills

Just because it's clearly much lower than trucking separated garbage.
I mean, recycling of non-metals is already so wasteful that this is a minor
point.

or the even greater cost of landfill dumping fees. (Landfill dumping
fees are boosted by NIMBY types that oppose everything and the many
those of the "greenies" that oppose too much of everything.)

You have plenty of land. In Europe we cannot afford landfills anymore.

There is also the matter that plastics are made from fossil fuels -
non-renewable natural resources that are limited in supply and which
have great demand. Recycling plastic trash or using it as fuel, as
opposed to dumping it in landfills, will make a dent in the demand for
fossil fuels.

Plastic, as paper, has a structure. The only way to change its shape is to
grind it, obtaining a useless blob, or to use chemicals *really* bad.
And/or a lot of energy.

For that matter, I think that paper and wood trash should be used as
fuel (for electricity generating stations if nothing else) when
recycling is less economically favorable than that.

Recycling that stuff is always economically (and thus energetically,
therefore "pollutionally") disadvantageous. That's why they need
incentives. From Government or from stupids.

When I was a joung socialist living in Va, I used to drive a 1 ton car up
to the recycling depot (sponsored by the local council, since the land was
leased for free) to bring some pounds of paper, glass and Al.

The depot manager once told me that the glass was taken (already divided by
color and put in truck trailers ready to be towed away) for free, while,
for having the paper removed, he had to pay with some of the money he got
from Al.

I'm talking about stuff carefully sorted by idiots like me, already loaded
in trailers, standing on "free" land. And the guy barely scraped a living
out of that. I we would have given him what we spent in gasoline (not
mentioning our time), I guess he would have made more money.

 

[F. Bertolazzi]

Jasen Betts:

On 2011-01-03, F. Bertolazzi <TOGLIeset@MAIUSCOLEtdd.it> wrote:
Jasen Betts:

On 2011-01-02, F. Bertolazzi <TOGLIeset@MAIUSCOLEtdd.it> wrote:

Since, as clearly illustrated also by the drawing you mention, this is
surface water, it is also the one that carries semi-floating plastic
debris, so the Mediterranean should gather even more garbage than what we
dump into it. But, luckily, we don't have any appreciable "garbage patch".

electrolux found plenty

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39870080/ns/world_news-world_environment/
top photo.

Well, if you buy such bullshit, you're likely to buy even worse manure.
And you evidently do.

it's possible that some other cause was putting all the chlorine up there
but I have not seen any convincing arguments

Clorine? Sounds a lot like a component of NaCl.
Did you know that the sea is salty?

It's incredible how green are
conservative and bigheaded. They want everything to stay as it is, and they
believe they can do something about it.

on the other hand ignoring evidence is often profitable

To whom?

I tell you what is extremely profitable: waste energy and materials for
clening the conscience of hypocrits.

Definitely. The only recyclable stuff are metals and, in fact, most of
those are recycled since ever without any Government intervention.

what about composting?

Even with a populace well brain-washed, pardon, educated, it's inevitable
to have "uncompostable" stuff in it, so, after a few years, your fields
will look like a landfill. That's why here nobody wants it anymore.

To solve most of the problem we should stop to provide plastic stuff to
poor countries, that handle it very very poorly. It's more important the
survival of a marine tortoise than that of a bunch of men of inferior
races, right?

looks like another straw-man to me

Really? I'm not so sure about it.
As you know, Hitler loved animals and was a vegetarian.

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article <1m7973s6a0bgo.okyvhybkowhm$.dlg@40tude.net>, F. Bertolazzi wrote:
Jasen Betts:

On 2011-01-03, F. Bertolazzi <TOGLIeset@MAIUSCOLEtdd.it> wrote:
Jasen Betts:

On 2011-01-02, F. Bertolazzi <TOGLIeset@MAIUSCOLEtdd.it> wrote:
Since, as clearly illustrated also by the drawing you mention, this is
surface water, it is also the one that carries semi-floating plastic
debris, so the Mediterranean should gather even more garbage than what we
dump into it. But, luckily, we don't have any appreciable "garbage patch".
electrolux found plenty

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39870080/ns/world_news-world_environment/
top photo.
Well, if you buy such bullshit, you're likely to buy even worse manure.
And you evidently do.

it's possible that some other cause was putting all the chlorine up there
but I have not seen any convincing arguments
Clorine? Sounds a lot like a component of NaCl.
Did you know that the sea is salty?

Chlorine in ionic compounds (NaCl) and nearly-ionic highly-polar
covalent bonding (as in HCl) is not the problem here. NaCl and HCl are
spectacularly hygroscopic. Moving air from surface level to tropopause
level rather reliably causes cloud formation, so NaCl and HCl originating
from the surface have extremely low rate of making it into the
stratosphere.

On the other hand, organic chlorine compounds such as CFCs lack ionic or
highly-polar covalent bonds, and are not hygroscopic but more inert. That
allows them to waft up into the stratosphere, where they run into ozone,
an extreme oxidizer that organic chlorine compound vapors are not inert
to. Noted reactions include freeing the chlorine from carbon so that
the chlorine is available for ozone destruction - as a catalyst, so that
the chlorine keeps on destroying ozone until it (temporarily) wafts back
down into the troposphere, or gets reacted into an inorganic compound that
is hygroscopic and gets rained down from the atmosphere.

Meanwhile, it appears to me that stalling of worsening of the "ozone
hole" since sometime in the 1990's and recently-prior-to-that growth of
the "ozone hole" are in an anthropogenic cause-and-effect relationship.
Other explanations have been searched for by opponents of manufacturing
and using organic chlorine compounds, but I have yet to hear of any
getting far.
The ozon hole could have been there for thousands of years, because

it was found by the first satellite to be put up to search for it.
Prior history is unavailable, and it is a bit un-scientific to
assume that it happened to occur at the same time as that satellite
went up.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <1m7973s6a0bgo.okyvhybkowhm$.dlg@40tude.net>, F. Bertolazzi wrote:

Jasen Betts:

On 2011-01-03, F. Bertolazzi <TOGLIeset@MAIUSCOLEtdd.it> wrote:
Jasen Betts:

On 2011-01-02, F. Bertolazzi <TOGLIeset@MAIUSCOLEtdd.it> wrote:

Since, as clearly illustrated also by the drawing you mention, this is
surface water, it is also the one that carries semi-floating plastic
debris, so the Mediterranean should gather even more garbage than what we
dump into it. But, luckily, we don't have any appreciable "garbage patch".

electrolux found plenty

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39870080/ns/world_news-world_environment/
top photo.

Well, if you buy such bullshit, you're likely to buy even worse manure.
And you evidently do.

it's possible that some other cause was putting all the chlorine up there
but I have not seen any convincing arguments

Clorine? Sounds a lot like a component of NaCl.
Did you know that the sea is salty?

Chlorine in ionic compounds (NaCl) and nearly-ionic highly-polar
covalent bonding (as in HCl) is not the problem here. NaCl and HCl are
spectacularly hygroscopic. Moving air from surface level to tropopause
level rather reliably causes cloud formation, so NaCl and HCl originating
from the surface have extremely low rate of making it into the
stratosphere.

On the other hand, organic chlorine compounds such as CFCs lack ionic or
highly-polar covalent bonds, and are not hygroscopic but more inert. That
allows them to waft up into the stratosphere, where they run into ozone,
an extreme oxidizer that organic chlorine compound vapors are not inert
to. Noted reactions include freeing the chlorine from carbon so that
the chlorine is available for ozone destruction - as a catalyst, so that
the chlorine keeps on destroying ozone until it (temporarily) wafts back
down into the troposphere, or gets reacted into an inorganic compound that
is hygroscopic and gets rained down from the atmosphere.

Meanwhile, it appears to me that stalling of worsening of the "ozone
hole" since sometime in the 1990's and recently-prior-to-that growth of
the "ozone hole" are in an anthropogenic cause-and-effect relationship.
Other explanations have been searched for by opponents of manufacturing
and using organic chlorine compounds, but I have yet to hear of any
getting far.
--
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Jasen Betts]

The ozon hole could have been there for thousands of years, because
it was found by the first satellite to be put up to search for it.
Prior history is unavailable, and it is a bit un-scientific to
assume that it happened to occur at the same time as that satellite
went up.

prior to the launch of the satwellites there's over 30 years of
ground-based optical measurements.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history.html

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <x3ay31cm4cfg$.ec7ugi0emsnw$.dlg@40tude.net>, F. Bertolazzi wrote:

Don Klipstein:

How about combined cost of making new and disposal in landfills? It
surely appears to me that recycling opponents don't like to count the cost
of trucking recyclable trash to landfills

Just because it's clearly much lower than trucking separated garbage.

How is it more expensive to drive a truck loaded with nothing but
plastic bottles than it is to drive one loaded with unsorted trash?

I mean, recycling of non-metals is already so wasteful that this is a minor
point.

or the even greater cost of landfill dumping fees. (Landfill dumping
fees are boosted by NIMBY types that oppose everything and the many
those of the "greenies" that oppose too much of everything.)

You have plenty of land. In Europe we cannot afford landfills anymore.

USA has most of its population in regions as densely populated as Europe
is. Along with plenty of NIMBYs.

There is also the matter that plastics are made from fossil fuels -
non-renewable natural resources that are limited in supply and which
have great demand. Recycling plastic trash or using it as fuel, as
opposed to dumping it in landfills, will make a dent in the demand for
fossil fuels.

Plastic, as paper, has a structure. The only way to change its shape is to
grind it, obtaining a useless blob, or to use chemicals *really* bad.
And/or a lot of energy.

Or melt it, since most plastics are thermoplastics, which are ones
intended to melt by heating and mold into shape. This includes PET
(recycling symbol #1), HDPE (recycling symbol #2), polypropylene
(recycling symbol #5), polystyrene (recycling symbol #6), and LDPE
(recycling symbol # either 3 or 4 IIRC).

For that matter, I think that paper and wood trash should be used as
fuel (for electricity generating stations if nothing else) when
recycling is less economically favorable than that.

Recycling that stuff is always economically (and thus energetically,
therefore "pollutionally") disadvantageous. That's why they need
incentives. From Government or from stupids.

When I was a joung socialist living in Va, I used to drive a 1 ton car up
to the recycling depot (sponsored by the local council, since the land was
leased for free) to bring some pounds of paper, glass and Al.

The depot manager once told me that the glass was taken (already divided by
color and put in truck trailers ready to be towed away) for free, while,
for having the paper removed, he had to pay with some of the money he got
from Al.

How is this the same now, now that recyclable paper scrap is worth
one or two hundred bucks a ton?

And if it is not economical to recycle paper scrap, why landfill it?
A ton of paper has the same fuel energy as about 420 kg or a goodly
2.6-2.7 barrels of petroleum - which is worth about $220 FOB before
any refining!

I'm talking about stuff carefully sorted by idiots like me, already loaded
in trailers, standing on "free" land. And the guy barely scraped a living
out of that. I we would have given him what we spent in gasoline (not
mentioning our time), I guess he would have made more money.

And how is today not different, now that in recent years minor shifts in
petroleum demand have caused major shifts in petroleum price?
--
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[F. Bertolazzi]

Don Klipstein:

In article <x3ay31cm4cfg$.ec7ugi0emsnw$.dlg@40tude.net>, F. Bertolazzi wrote:
Don Klipstein:

How about combined cost of making new and disposal in landfills? It
surely appears to me that recycling opponents don't like to count the cost
of trucking recyclable trash to landfills

Just because it's clearly much lower than trucking separated garbage.

How is it more expensive to drive a truck loaded with nothing but
plastic bottles than it is to drive one loaded with unsorted trash?

The local dump is, most of the times... local. The recycling plant not
necessarily, practically never. The local dump "processes" every kind of
garbage, the recycling plants are specialized for each type of rubbish.
Even plastic bottles are of different kinds, requiring very different
treatments: soda bottles are rather different from detergent or milk
containers. A recycling plant must have a "critical mass", so it will
require to gather stuff from a much wider basin, wile even a 10 people
village can have its own, local dump.

USA has most of its population in regions as densely populated as Europe
is. Along with plenty of NIMBYs.

Well, we have them here too, but they are also represented in parliament
and/or affiliated to organized crime. Who do you think caused the Naples
rubbish crysis?

Or melt it, since most plastics are thermoplastics, which are ones
intended to melt by heating and mold into shape.

I'm not sure about it, soda bottles are inflated, so the preformed mould
must be perfect.

Anyway, you can recycle them only after you have collected and transported
them, taken out the label and cleaned it from all residues. If it was
economically (an thus ecologically) viable, someone would have done it.
Here, charities collect PE plastic caps, much smaller but with a weight
comparable to the bottles, small surface so there's not much goo to clean,
and very compact and ship them to China (probably for free, containers must
return somehow).

How is this the same now, now that recyclable paper scrap is worth
one or two hundred bucks a ton?

Where? At the recycling plant or in the middle of Arizona?

And if it is not economical to recycle paper scrap, why landfill it?
A ton of paper has the same fuel energy as about 420 kg or a goodly
2.6-2.7 barrels of petroleum - which is worth about $220 FOB before
any refining!

By all means. Incineration is the way to go.

And how is today not different, now that in recent years minor shifts in
petroleum demand have caused major shifts in petroleum price?

Well, minor is probably not the best term, since China, that once was an
oil exporter, has become one of the big importers.

 

[F. Bertolazzi]

Don Klipstein:

Chlorine in ionic compounds (NaCl) and nearly-ionic highly-polar
covalent bonding (as in HCl) is not the problem here. NaCl and HCl are
spectacularly hygroscopic. Moving air from surface level to tropopause
level rather reliably causes cloud formation, so NaCl and HCl originating
from the surface have extremely low rate of making it into the
stratosphere.

Sure, but 2/3 of the Earth is covered with salty water.

On the other hand, organic chlorine compounds such as CFCs lack ionic or
highly-polar covalent bonds, and are not hygroscopic but more inert. That
allows them to waft up into the stratosphere, where they run into ozone,
an extreme oxidizer that organic chlorine compound vapors are not inert
to. Noted reactions include freeing the chlorine from carbon so that
the chlorine is available for ozone destruction - as a catalyst, so that
the chlorine keeps on destroying ozone until it (temporarily) wafts back
down into the troposphere, or gets reacted into an inorganic compound that
is hygroscopic and gets rained down from the atmosphere.

Yeah, I remember well that story, but there are also other known (and
unknown) ways to reduce O3 to O2, including... doing nothing. The depletion
may have been caused as well by a reduced production of O3

Meanwhile, it appears to me that stalling of worsening of the "ozone
hole" since sometime in the 1990's and recently-prior-to-that growth of
the "ozone hole" are in an anthropogenic cause-and-effect relationship.
Other explanations have been searched for by opponents of manufacturing
and using organic chlorine compounds, but I have yet to hear of any
getting far.

You don't get anywhere without funds. And why someone should fund a
research that may tell us that we threw away our fridges because of stupid
research? On top of that, all of the money for such research is being spent
on falsifying data to demonstrate that there is a thing such as global
warming. This is not surprising, given the fact that Mr Pachauri is on the
board of countless industried that waste energy and materials to build
"alternative energies" machinery.

In other fields, such as epidemiology, the funding is less biased, so,
after 20 years, we get to know that Hinkley has a cancer rate below
average. But Mrs Brockovich is not likely to return the $2.5M she stole,
nor the rights on the movie, nor stop to make more money on her phoney
environmental activism.

To paraphrase you, making up evidence is always very profitable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1343559/Was-Erin-Brockovich-single-mother-claimed-towns-water-poisoned-wrong.html

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2011-01-04, F. Bertolazzi <TOGLIeset@MAIUSCOLEtdd.it> wrote:

the "ozone hole" are in an anthropogenic cause-and-effect relationship.
Other explanations have been searched for by opponents of manufacturing
and using organic chlorine compounds, but I have yet to hear of any
getting far.

You don't get anywhere without funds. And why someone should fund a
research that may tell us that we threw away our fridges because of stupid
research?

What's that supposed to mea?, can the same logic be applied to
smoke detectors?

On top of that, all of the money for such research is being spent
on falsifying data to demonstrate that there is a thing such as global
warming.

That sure sounds like a conspiracy theory.

This is not surprising, given the fact that Mr Pachauri is on the
board of countless industried that waste energy and materials to build
"alternative energies" machinery.

In other fields, such as epidemiology, the funding is less biased, so,
after 20 years, we get to know that Hinkley has a cancer rate below
average. But Mrs Brockovich is not likely to return the $2.5M she stole,
nor the rights on the movie, nor stop to make more money on her phoney
environmental activism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1343559/Was-Erin-Brockovich-single-mother-claimed-towns-water-poisoned-wrong.html

Are the residents of Hinkley still being exposed to hexavbalent cromium?


--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

 

[F. Bertolazzi]

F. Bertolazzi:

hat may tell us that we threw away our fridges because of stupid
research?

Stupid, or sponsored, or self-righteous, or exploited, as you prefer.

To paraphrase you, making up evidence is always very profitable.

Sorry, I never meant to confuse you with Mr. Betts. But your support for
what I now (at the time, published by SciAm, I bought it at face value)
regard as the dress rehearsal of global warming confused me.

True, global warming was invented by Maggie herself, and it's only solution
is atomic energy (possibly with fast breeders), but I refuse to willingly
lie. Although it may be necessary, given the "empowered" plebs that votes
liars.

 

[F. Bertolazzi]

Jasen Betts:

On 2011-01-04, F. Bertolazzi <TOGLIeset@MAIUSCOLEtdd.it> wrote:
the "ozone hole" are in an anthropogenic cause-and-effect relationship.
Other explanations have been searched for by opponents of manufacturing
and using organic chlorine compounds, but I have yet to hear of any
getting far.

You don't get anywhere without funds. And why someone should fund a
research that may tell us that we threw away our fridges because of stupid
research?

What's that supposed to mea?, can the same logic be applied to
smoke detectors?

Uh?

On top of that, all of the money for such research is being spent
on falsifying data to demonstrate that there is a thing such as global
warming.

That sure sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Well, in this case, given the fact that there is an elite that studies
impersctutable matters (they can't do a reliable one-week forecast of that
chaotic system), headed by a less than spotless guy, a bunch of often
yesterday's experts that either gains a lot (fame and money) or returns to
the limelight, and seen the West Anglia e-mails, I may be tempted to think
about such an occurrence.

Are the residents of Hinkley still being exposed to hexavbalent cromium?

As long as they don't inhale it. they're safe as usual.

I appreciate, truly, the fact thad you don't insist on lost points.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <4d22c6db$0$8915$703f8584@textnews.kpn.nl>, Sjouke Burry wrote:

<SNIP to here>

The ozon hole could have been there for thousands of years, because
it was found by the first satellite to be put up to search for it.
Prior history is unavailable, and it is a bit un-scientific to
assume that it happened to occur at the same time as that satellite
went up.

The satellite record goes back to 1979. The ozone was in fairly good
shape from 1979 through 1981, then the hole worsened greatly after that
until around 1993-1994 (those 2 years slightly worsened also by the
Pinatubo eruption), and after that largely stabilized with a slight
improving trend noticeably kicking in at 2007.

"Hole area" is defined as area having less than 220 Dobson units of
ozone. Before 1979, there were ground-based measurements, though without
the coverage of satellites. But absolutely none found less than 220
Dobson units anywhere at any time before 1979.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

The ozone hole was announced in 1985, a somewhat bad year in the time
when the ozone hole was rapidly growing.
--
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com, http://members.misty.com/don/index.html)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <1nqqa09lrtg1r$.1tzlug3vrz1sk$.dlg@40tude.net>, F. Bertolazzi wrote:

Don Klipstein:

In <x3ay31cm4cfg$.ec7ugi0emsnw$.dlg@40tude.net>, F. Bertolazzi wrote:
Don Klipstein:

How about combined cost of making new and disposal in landfills? It
surely appears to me that recycling opponents don't like to count the
cost of trucking recyclable trash to landfills

Just because it's clearly much lower than trucking separated garbage.

How is it more expensive to drive a truck loaded with nothing but
plastic bottles than it is to drive one loaded with unsorted trash?

The local dump is, most of the times... local. The recycling plant not
necessarily, practically never. The local dump "processes" every kind of
garbage, the recycling plants are specialized for each type of rubbish.

My experience from near and previously in Philadelphia: The landfills
are now well out of town. There's even the matter of I-95 corridor high
population areas exporting landfillable trash as far as into the Midwest.
This leads to the complaint of trailers being used alternately to haul
trash westward and goods such as food eastward.

The dump only 40 or whatever miles out of town charged something like
$60-80 per ton nearly 15 years ago, probably significantly more now.

Even plastic bottles are of different kinds, requiring very different
treatments: soda bottles are rather different from detergent or milk
containers. A recycling plant must have a "critical mass", so it will
require to gather stuff from a much wider basin, wile even a 10 people
village can have its own, local dump.

Philadelphia has in-town a sorting facility for recyclable trash.
That plant sorts out the #1 plastic bottles (PETE, typically water and
soda bottles) and the #2 ones (HDPE, which most milk bottles are).

Sorted PETE and HDPE have positive value. Heck, a ton of HDPE has
as much fuel value as over 5 barrels of petroleum - I wish the NIMBYs and
the greenies would not oppose an electric generation station fueled by
HDPE trash. Just some engineering will make HDPE burn as cleanly as
fuel oil can - the two are chemically very similar. For that matter,
toss in the similar LDPE, close enough to identical to HDPE for fuel
purposes.

USA has most of its population in regions as densely populated as Europe
is. Along with plenty of NIMBYs.

Well, we have them here too, but they are also represented in parliament
and/or affiliated to organized crime. Who do you think caused the Naples
rubbish crysis?

Or melt it, since most plastics are thermoplastics, which are ones
intended to melt by heating and mold into shape.

I'm not sure about it, soda bottles are inflated, so the preformed mould
must be perfect.

Anyway, you can recycle them only after you have collected and transported
them, taken out the label and cleaned it from all residues. If it was
economically (an thus ecologically) viable, someone would have done it.
Here, charities collect PE plastic caps, much smaller but with a weight
comparable to the bottles, small surface so there's not much goo to clean,
and very compact and ship them to China (probably for free, containers must
return somehow).

How is this the same now, now that recyclable paper scrap is worth
one or two hundred bucks a ton?

Where? At the recycling plant or in the middle of Arizona?

Scrap price of recyclable paper, even corrugated cardboard boxes, in
or within 10 miles of Philadelphia.

And if it is not economical to recycle paper scrap, why landfill it?
A ton of paper has the same fuel energy as about 420 kg or a goodly
2.6-2.7 barrels of petroleum - which is worth about $220 FOB before
any refining!

By all means. Incineration is the way to go.

And how is today not different, now that in recent years minor shifts in
petroleum demand have caused major shifts in petroleum price?

Well, minor is probably not the best term, since China, that once was an
oil exporter, has become one of the big importers.

--
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <16eiy2wanmzy6$.33y6rhk0c3xc.dlg@40tude.net>, F. Bertolazzi wrote:

Don Klipstein:

Chlorine in ionic compounds (NaCl) and nearly-ionic highly-polar
covalent bonding (as in HCl) is not the problem here. NaCl and HCl are
spectacularly hygroscopic. Moving air from surface level to tropopause
level rather reliably causes cloud formation, so NaCl and HCl originating
from the surface have extremely low rate of making it into the
stratosphere.

Sure, but 2/3 of the Earth is covered with salty water.

The salt still has low rate of reaching the stratosphere 16-plus Km
aloft where the ozone layer is. And for whatever any other reasons, it
does not harm ozone the way organic compounds including chlorine do.
A strong candidate reason is that Cl in NaCl sticks close to the NA,
not prone to being liberated into free chlorine the way chlorine in
chlorine-containing organic compounds is upon exposure to ozone and/or
ozone-forming shortwave UV.

On the other hand, organic chlorine compounds such as CFCs lack ionic or
highly-polar covalent bonds, and are not hygroscopic but more inert. That
allows them to waft up into the stratosphere, where they run into ozone,
an extreme oxidizer that organic chlorine compound vapors are not inert
to. Noted reactions include freeing the chlorine from carbon so that
the chlorine is available for ozone destruction - as a catalyst, so that
the chlorine keeps on destroying ozone until it (temporarily) wafts back
down into the troposphere, or gets reacted into an inorganic compound that
is hygroscopic and gets rained down from the atmosphere.

Yeah, I remember well that story, but there are also other known (and
unknown) ways to reduce O3 to O2, including... doing nothing. The depletion
may have been caused as well by a reduced production of O3

The production source is very short wavelength UV in or near the "vacuum
UV" subset of the UVC range. The sun is reasonably constant with this,
despite variability being a few or several times the variability of the
"solar constant" (which has done a fairly good job of appearing to be
constant +/- something like a part per thousand).

Meanwhile, it appears to me that stalling of worsening of the "ozone
hole" since sometime in the 1990's and recently-prior-to-that growth of
the "ozone hole" are in an anthropogenic cause-and-effect relationship.
Other explanations have been searched for by opponents of manufacturing
and using organic chlorine compounds, but I have yet to hear of any
getting far.

You don't get anywhere without funds. And why someone should fund a
research that may tell us that we threw away our fridges because of stupid
research? On top of that, all of the money for such research is being spent
on falsifying data to demonstrate that there is a thing such as global
warming. This is not surprising, given the fact that Mr Pachauri is on the
board of countless industried that waste energy and materials to build
"alternative energies" machinery.

The ozone hole problem predated popularization of global warming.

There is also the matter that man-made global warming is for real,
while it appears to me that IPCC "median track" (warming this century by
3 degrees C) overestimates this by a factor around 2. From now to 2035,
it does appear to me that global temperature is likely to be about steady,
fair chance very slightly cool, from AGW being borderline to slightly
insufficient to overcome a likely ~30 year oceanic oscillation cooling
trend and a "210-year-class" downturn in solar output likely to last about
or slightly over 25 years, combined with climate sensitivity to solar
variation appearing to me to be greater than to variation of greenhouse
gases. This does not negate existence of man-made global warming.

<SNIP from here>
--
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com, http://members.misty.com/don/index.html)

 

[F. Bertolazzi]

Don Klipstein:

Sorted PETE and HDPE have positive value. Heck, a ton of HDPE has
as much fuel value as over 5 barrels of petroleum - I wish the NIMBYs and
the greenies would not oppose an electric generation station fueled by
HDPE trash. Just some engineering will make HDPE burn as cleanly as
fuel oil can - the two are chemically very similar. For that matter,
toss in the similar LDPE, close enough to identical to HDPE for fuel
purposes.

If the incinerator is placed downtown as in Copenhaghen or Brescia, you
could also get free home heating and, with a little engineering, cooling.

 

[F. Bertolazzi]

Don Klipstein:

The production source is very short wavelength UV in or near the "vacuum
UV" subset of the UVC range. The sun is reasonably constant with this,
despite variability being a few or several times the variability of the
"solar constant" (which has done a fairly good job of appearing to be
constant +/- something like a part per thousand).

But, as you mentioned, things like Pinatubo can affect O3 production.

Maybe some El Ninho (just to throw in the name of a huge and only recently
studied phenomenon) side-effect was to blow NaCl or particulates in the
stratosphere. Did you know that the recent "melting" of the South Pole was
due to its albedo reduced by the sand blown from Australia?

And anyway, given the huge amounts of CFCs used as spray propellant and PCB
washing, did it make any sense to prohibit the usage for fridges and AC?

The ozone hole problem predated popularization of global warming.

Sure. So nobody now makes more research in that field to double-check
wether the CFCs were really the culprits.

This does not negate existence of man-made global warming.

Also it does not negate that global warming (if it really exixts) can have
other and more important contributions, that fight it with carbon emissions
certificates will be a bonanza for organized crime, that it may be a good
thing, or anyway better than another ice age.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Don Klipstein wrote:

In<1amymk2ohu588$.1bahbs56b8su5$.dlg@40tude.net>, F. Bertolazzi wrote
in part:

SNIP to the point of recycling

Definitely. The only recyclable stuff are metals and, in fact, most of
those are recycled since ever without any Government intervention.

The rest costs more energy than making it anew, more energy, untill we
convert to purely atomic (with hydroelectric to compensate daily
fluctuations) means more pollution.

Sure, we should get rid of glass containers, that cost more to recycle than
to make from sand, are heavy (so their transportation pollutes more) and
don't incinerate.

How about combined cost of making new and disposal in landfills? It
surely appears to me that recycling opponents don't like to count the cost
of trucking recyclable trash to landfills, or the even greater cost of
landfill dumping fees. (Landfill dumping fees are boosted by NIMBY types
that oppose everything and the many those of the "greenies" that oppose
too much of everything.)

There is also the matter that plastics are made from fossil fuels -
non-renewable natural resources that are limited in supply and which have
great demand. Recycling plastic trash or using it as fuel, as opposed to
dumping it in landfills, will make a dent in the demand for fossil fuels.

For that matter, I think that paper and wood trash should be used as
fuel (for electricity generating stations if nothing else) when recycling
is less economically favorable than that.

Landfills are a special case. They consist of large, high-grade
deposits of every sort of raw material you need for a technological
society. In a century or two, they'll all have been mined.

Lots of minerals are commercial in quantities of ounces per ton of ore,
so landfills will one day be very attractive places to look.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs