FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#1501389 --- 07/12/17 03:43 PM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: kyle585]
scwoodchuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/14
Posts: 1465
Loc: LOST IN SPACE
correct kyle and the biggest fear is that the devoloping countries should catch up with the US in the near future. So the short term answer is either they pring us down or we keep them down.
_________________________
I can't wait till humans evolve into an intelligent species.

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1501390 --- 07/12/17 03:56 PM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: scwoodchuck]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 15769
Loc: Somewhere out there
Originally Posted By: scwoodchuck
correct kyle and the biggest fear is that the devoloping countries should catch up with the US in the near future. So the short term answer is either they pring us down or we keep them down.
Wow. That is a sad choice isn't it? I don't really think they are going to catch up with us for at least another generation?

Top
#1501394 --- 07/12/17 04:46 PM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: kyle585]
scwoodchuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/14
Posts: 1465
Loc: LOST IN SPACE
Originally Posted By: kyle585
Originally Posted By: scwoodchuck
Originally Posted By: kyle585
Originally Posted By: scwoodchuck
And the average American consumes 32 times what someone consumes in a devoloping country. Tell you anything ?
It tells me we must work on consuming less. Do you agree?
That would be totally un american grin I mean how would you expect someone to live without the fancy car, the big house, the boat and camper ? I mean people would actually be able to pay off all their credit card debt, maybe even pay off the mortgage. That is simply not the American way !!!!! And do you really think my neighbor should have to go to work without his 4x4 $60,000 pickup truck when he lives 2 blocks away ? RIDICULOUS
Your comments here make you sound like an environmentalist. Is that what you consider yourself?
I am a realist, environmentalists refuse to see the whole picture. With current trends in population growth, nearly depleted resources and the obsession to sanitize the planet we are wasting to much time and money trying to save the planet when it is the human species we should be concerned about. This whole "GREEN IDEOLOGY " may upset the balance of power worldwide, and it's closer than you think. Environmentalism bolsters the " Globalization " movement and that may start a war for control.
_________________________
I can't wait till humans evolve into an intelligent species.

Top
#1501395 --- 07/12/17 04:55 PM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: scwoodchuck]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 15769
Loc: Somewhere out there
Originally Posted By: scwoodchuck
With current trends in population growth, nearly depleted resources and the obsession to sanitize the planet we are wasting to much time and money trying to save the planet when it is the human species we should be concerned about. This whole "GREEN IDEOLOGY " may upset the balance of power worldwide, and it's closer than you think. Environmentalism bolsters the " Globalization " movement and that may start a war for control.
How in the world can you save the human species if they don't have a decent planet to live on? Wow.

Top
#1501422 --- 07/12/17 10:45 PM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: kyle585]
scwoodchuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/14
Posts: 1465
Loc: LOST IN SPACE
What is the object of our space program ? What if the whole global warming thing is wrong and there is another ice age ?
https://youtu.be/YF8AAJSTJoM


Edited by scwoodchuck (07/12/17 11:02 PM)
_________________________
I can't wait till humans evolve into an intelligent species.

Top
#1501432 --- 07/13/17 02:14 AM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: scwoodchuck]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 15769
Loc: Somewhere out there
Originally Posted By: scwoodchuck
What is the object of our space program ? What if the whole global warming thing is wrong and there is another ice age ?
https://youtu.be/YF8AAJSTJoM
We landed a man on the moon in 1969. That was 48 years ago! At this rate, the earth will be destroyed before we find a new home.

Top
#1501439 --- 07/13/17 05:43 AM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: kyle585]
scwoodchuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/14
Posts: 1465
Loc: LOST IN SPACE
_________________________
I can't wait till humans evolve into an intelligent species.

Top
#1501443 --- 07/13/17 06:14 AM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: scwoodchuck]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 15769
Loc: Somewhere out there
Very interesting. Thanks for posting it.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Eminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change.

Top
#1501444 --- 07/13/17 06:16 AM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: scwoodchuck]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 15769
Loc: Somewhere out there
Do you believe in a God or a supreme being? If all humans are wiped out, then it seems like all religious life is a waste?

Top
#1501462 --- 07/13/17 09:21 AM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: kyle585]
scwoodchuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/14
Posts: 1465
Loc: LOST IN SPACE
Man had about 9, what are called cousins, that are now extinct. The scientific community figures the human population was down to about 2000 about 70,000 years ago. Man may have been on the brink of extinction about 5 times in the past. So if there is a god, tell me does he care ? I think not.
_________________________
I can't wait till humans evolve into an intelligent species.

Top
#1501481 --- 07/13/17 03:55 PM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: kyle585]
scwoodchuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/14
Posts: 1465
Loc: LOST IN SPACE
Originally Posted By: kyle585
Very interesting. Thanks for posting it.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Eminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change.



http://futurehumanevolution.com/wp-conte...ion-Website.png
_________________________
I can't wait till humans evolve into an intelligent species.

Top
#1501580 --- 07/15/17 06:57 AM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: Festus]
scwoodchuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/14
Posts: 1465
Loc: LOST IN SPACE
Originally Posted By: Festus
So can we get back to LANDFILLS ?
202-331-1010 • www.cei.org • Competitive Enterprise Institute
Americans like to recycle, and recycling
is indeed an important part of our integrated
waste management system. This system recog-
nizes that some portions of our waste are most
efficiently recycled, some are most efficiently
placed in landfills, and some should be burned
in incinerators. The key is finding the mix of op-
tions that conserves the most resources, while
protecting the environment. Market-driven
competition is the best way to achieve this goal.
Each option represents its costs to society: the
value of the water, energy, land, labor, and other
resources that the disposal option requires.
Hence, by allowing competition between dis-
posal options, we enable the most resource-effi-
cient (the least expensive) option to win in any
given case. Yet state and local governments do
not follow this advice. They try to manage their
waste with plans similar to the economic plans
of the former socialist nations, creating a host of
economic and environmental problems.
Legislative Background
For the most part, state and local laws govern
waste management. However, federal law has
an important effect on how they operate. The
federal Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) sets voluntary guidelines for states
to develop solid waste management plans. When
devising these plans, state and local officials esti-
mate how much waste they expect each commu-
nity to create over a 5- to 30-year period; then
they plan ways to manage that waste. Because the
federal government provides financial assistance
to state bureaucracies that gain approval of their plans from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), nearly all states and localities use
waste management planning.
Misplaced Political Priorities
Relying on 30-year waste management
plans presents serious problems. Public offi-
cials cannot possibly estimate future waste gen-
eration, nor can they envision future disposal
technology. As a result, they often make poor
decisions, invest in the wrong technologies, and
choose less efficient disposal options.1
In addition, with more government involve-
ment, waste management increasingly serves
politically popular goals at the expense of safe
and efficient disposal. In particular, the EPA’s
system of politically preferred waste disposal
options, called the waste management hierar-
chy, governs most state and local waste man-
agement plans. According to the hierarchy,
waste policy should first focus on reducing the
amount of trash that people make—so-called
source reduction. Second, it should emphasize
recycling. And wastes that we cannot reduce or
recycle should go to the politically unpopular
options: to the landfill (third on the list) or to
an incinerator (fourth on the list). By relying on
this political formula, bureaucrats often work
to promote source reduction and recycling at
any cost to the environment and consumers.
In contrast, private sector recycling is always
driven toward the most efficient mix of disposal
options. Professor Pierre Desrochers documents
1. Numerous states and localities have invested in
waste disposal facilities—primarily waste-to-energy
incinerators—only to find that these facilities are not
economically efficient. As a result, states and localities
went so far as to ban competition with these plants, until
the Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional. See
the policy brief titled “Interstate Waste Commerce.”
that recycling and reuse of materials have always
been a part of industrial processes because wast-
ing resources does not make economic sense.2
It is also true that private markets promote re-
cycling only when it makes sense, whereas the
government regulates recycling even when it
requires more resources than it saves.
Source Reduction
The desire to reduce waste—defining waste
as not using our resources efficiently—is a wor-
thy goal. But source reduction confuses waste
reduction with plans to abolish useful products.
Ironically, attempts to eliminate useful products
can increase refuse by eliminating packaging
that prevents spoilage or product damage. For
example, developing countries experience food
spoilage of 30 percent to 50 percent because
of inadequate packaging, storage, and distribu-
tion. With sophisticated packaging, storage, and
distribution, developed nations experience food
spoilage of only 2 percent to 3 percent.3
Manufacturers know that more efficient packaging—
rather than its elimination—saves resources.
It makes more sense to use such market forces
than to assume that government bureaucrats can
mandate more efficient options. For example,
between 1980 and 1998, manufacturers reduced
the material necessary to make a two-liter plastic
bottle from 65 grams to 48 grams, an aluminum
can from 19 grams to 14 grams, a glass bottle
from 255 grams to 170 grams, a steel can from
48 grams to 36 grams, and a plastic grocery sack
from 9 grams to 6 grams.4
In the rush to serve the politically preferred
goal of source reduction, some public officials
seek to reduce disposable products, such as pa-
per cups and utensils. But a Waste Policy Center
report that reviewed 34 studies on disposable
packaging highlights why this policy does not
necessarily serve public health or environmen-
tal goals.5
The study found that disposables
reduce exposure to dangerous bacteria. For ex-
ample, one study examined a sample of utensils
from restaurants, hotels, medical institutions,
and schools. It found, on average, 410 bacterial
colonies on reusable utensils compared with 2
bacterial colonies on disposable utensils.
Because it does not require washing, dispos-
able packaging uses less water and produces
less wastewater. For example, the Waste Policy
Center study found that washing a china cup in
the dishwasher just once produces more water
pollution than the entire life cycle of a dispos-
able cup. Reusable products are better for the
environment (in regard to solid waste disposal,
air pollution, and energy usage) only if they are
used several hundred times.
Recycling
Similarly, because recycling is so politically
popular, public officials developed goals as part
of their waste management plans to recycle a
specific percentage of household waste. To meet
these goals, local governments have used man-
dated recycling programs and required that cer-

tain products contain a percentage of recycled
content.
As a result, local governments expend
enormous resources to promote recycling, even
when that means using more resources than re-
cycling saves. Note the following facts:
• Despite conventional wisdom, recycling has
environmental tradeoffs. In many cases it
can be the less environmentally sound op-
tion, because recycling can use more energy
and water and can emit more air pollution
than other alternatives.7
States spend $322
million annually to subsidize recycling, ac-
cording to one study.8
• Recycling costs are passed to the consumer
through trash bills or taxes. One study
found that the average cost per household
with curbside recycling was $144 annually;
without recycling, the cost of trash disposal
was $119.9
These costs can consume a con-
siderable amount of a city’s budget. For example Sanford Maine spent $90,990 to recycle waste that it could have safely placed
in landfills for $13,365.10
• As citizens sort their trash for recycling,
most assume that those materials then go
to a recycling facility. But many times, local
governments cannot find markets for all the
goods they collect, and much of the material
ends up in a landfill.11 It is very difficult to
determine how much governments actually
recycle.
Landfills and Incinerators
Recycling is pushed largely to avoid using
landfills or incinerating waste. Anti-landfill sen-
timents arose because many needlessly feared
that we would run out of landfill space. The
battle against landfills heated up in the 1990s
when public officials wrongly proclaimed that
we faced a garbage crisis because we were run-
ning out of landfill space. One reason for this
problem, they said, was that existing landfills
would close in 5 to 10 years.12 But that is true
at any point in time, because landfills last only
that long. Problems arise when states fail to
permit new facilities.
There was in the 1990s (and still is) plenty
of land on which to place new landfills. Dur-
ing the alleged landfill crisis, A. Clark Wiseman
of Gonzaga University pointed out that, given
projected waste increases, we would still be able
to fit the next 1,000 years of trash in a single
landfill 120 feet deep, with 44-mile sides.13
Wiseman’s point is clear: land disposal needs
are small compared with the land available in
the 3 million square miles of the contiguous
United States.
The real landfill problem is political. Fears
about the effects of landfills on the local envi-
ronment have led to the rise of the not-in-my-
backyard (NIMBY) syndrome, which has made
permitting facilities difficult. Actual landfill ca-
pacity is not running out. The market response
to this problem is the construction of larger
landfills, creating greater disposal capacity even
with fewer landfills.14
Landfills are politically unpopular because
many citizens fear the public health risks. But es-
timates of landfill risks—based on EPA assump-
tions that “maximally exposed” individuals face
a cancer risk of one in a million—reveal that the
risks to public health are not significant. When
compared with most other forms of business
and activities that we experience in daily living,
the risks posed by landfills to the surrounding
communities are miniscule (see chart).

Cancer Risks
(assumes 70 years of maximum exposure)
One-in-a-Million Risks of Death
(assumes one year of exposure)
60 percent of landfills pose a one-in-10-billion risk.
6 percent pose a one-in-a-billion risk.
17 percent pose one-in-a-million risk.
Incinerators pose one-in-a-million risk.
Modern landfills pose lowest of risks.
Smoking 1.4 cigarettes
Drinking half liter of wine
Living two days in New York or Boston
Traveling 6 minutes by canoe
Traveling 10 miles by bicycle
Traveling 300 miles by car
Flying 1,000 miles by jet
One chest x-ray
Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter
Sources: Jennifer Chilton and Kenneth Chilton, “A Critique of Risk Modeling and Risk Assessment of Municipal Waste Management


Edited by scwoodchuck (07/15/17 08:34 AM)
_________________________
I can't wait till humans evolve into an intelligent species.

Top
#1501873 --- 07/19/17 06:36 AM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: scwoodchuck]
Hello_Governer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/03/11
Posts: 1564
Loc: New York, Seneca
The DEC public hearing is advertised in yesterdays paper. It will be August 10, one at 3pm and another at 6pm at the, get this, Douglas Avery Performing Arts Center, Mynderse Academy, 105 Troy Street. What a suitable location, we can all watch the drama queens perform and make fools of themselves. grin

Gotta feel sorry for the judge though, he has suffered thru many of these hearings and has heard it all before. Can't wait to see his ruling. If he were smart he would just change the date of his last ruling.


Edited by Hello_Governer (07/19/17 06:37 AM)
_________________________
Do we really have to make everything IDIOT PROOF ?

Top
#1502298 --- 07/24/17 12:46 PM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: Festus]
hearallseeall Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/03/10
Posts: 1906
Loc: nolongerunder10pilesoftrash
Quote:
"The situation is not great as the waste releases a stench so powerful it makes those not used to it throw up. Literally have everything come out of you." Nurul Ashikin

Top
#1502303 --- 07/24/17 01:27 PM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: scwoodchuck]
Timbo Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 13470
Loc: CNY
Originally Posted By: scwoodchuck
Originally Posted By: Festus
So can we get back to LANDFILLS ?

Sure, just as long as you don't continue to inject Obama and incorrect deforestation statistics into the discussion. wink
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1502304 --- 07/24/17 01:29 PM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: Festus]
hearallseeall Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/03/10
Posts: 1906
Loc: nolongerunder10pilesoftrash
Plenty of people in the area have signs opposing the dump in their front yards.

"Dump the Dump"

"Let's Not Trash Our Future"

Top
#1502306 --- 07/24/17 02:41 PM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: hearallseeall]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 15769
Loc: Somewhere out there
Originally Posted By: hearallseeall
Plenty of people in the area have signs opposing the dump in their front yards.

"Dump the Dump"

"Let's Not Trash Our Future"
Yes they do. I haven't see one yard sign up yet supporting the dump.

Top
#1502309 --- 07/24/17 02:58 PM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: kyle585]
hearallseeall Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/03/10
Posts: 1906
Loc: nolongerunder10pilesoftrash
Originally Posted By: kyle585
Originally Posted By: hearallseeall
Plenty of people in the area have signs opposing the dump in their front yards.

"Dump the Dump"

"Let's Not Trash Our Future"
Yes they do. I haven't see one yard sign up yet supporting the dump.

I'm sure the old SM manager, DonG., would have one in his front yard supporting the dump. Oh wait, never mind, he moved out of SF. Must be he couldn't stand the smell. And to think he was bragging about how much of a community man he was.

Top
#1502326 --- 07/24/17 08:12 PM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: kyle585]
gassy one Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/27/16
Posts: 1970
Originally Posted By: kyle585
Originally Posted By: hearallseeall
Plenty of people in the area have signs opposing the dump in their front yards.

"Dump the Dump"

"Let's Not Trash Our Future"
Yes they do. I haven't see one yard sign up yet supporting the dump.
That's because only crybabies cry!

Top
#1502339 --- 07/24/17 08:40 PM Re: Seneca Meadows used as bad example in Malaysia [Re: gassy one]
scwoodchuck Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/14
Posts: 1465
Loc: LOST IN SPACE
Gee, Kyle must have forgot about all the signs during the last election. The signs will be going up for the next November election too.
_________________________
I can't wait till humans evolve into an intelligent species.

Top
Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >