Date: Mon Feb 18 09:20:23 2008 Back to Contents

Author: Rick Tarara

Subject: Re: rationalization for trash burning

Post:
A fallacy that has pretty much disappeared is that we want trash to BE
biodegradable--the McDonald's packaging and leaf bag controversies of the
past. In fact, you want nothing going into the land fill to be
biodegradable. The primary danger from land fills (and from a nuclear waste
depository) is that toxins leach into the ground water. That is all but
impossible for the Yucca Mountain site, but very possible (probable) from
almost any land fill. The situation comes down to this--if someone throws
his Big Mac wrapper out the window of the car then you want it
biodegradable. If it is to be collected and put into the land fill--then
you don't. 30% of worldwide, human induced CO-2 comes from wood files for
cooking--(even Al agrees on that--or so I'm told [to watch the 'Truth' all
the way through for the first time tomorrow. ;-( ] I can't see that
burning trash is 'green'.

Rick [getting his electricity from nuclear energy!]

***************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN
rtarara@saintmarys.edu
******************************
Free Physics Software
PC & Mac
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
*******************************

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernard Cleyet"
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 2:47 AM
Subject: Re: [tap-l] rationalization for trash burning


> True corrugated card board's glue may be toxic -- I'm careful to pull
> slick paper tho I think it's kaolin and, therefore, not toxic, and any
> plastics -- they are very toxic burned. However, I don't add heat, as
> the fireplace is a substitute for the gas furnaces. The smoke may be
> biodegradable -- an interesting subject to pursue.
>
>
> bc waiting for a bacterium that produces a plastic ase.
>


From tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu Mon Feb 18 09:20:23 2008

Back