GreenYes Digest V97 #295

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@mlist.ucsd.edu)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:03:26 -0500


GreenYes Digest Fri, 5 Dec 97 Volume 97 : Issue 295

Today's Topics:
'People' vs 'persons' --not purpose of story about recycling
compact disks (2 msgs)
Compaction Ratios (2 msgs)
Fwd: A little holiday treat
GreenYes Digest V97 #294
polystyrene tray recycling
refillables in schools

Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to postmaster@ucsd.edu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=

---
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 08:46:32 -0600 From: Susan Snow <sksnow@1stnet.com> Subject: 'People' vs 'persons' --not purpose of story about recycling

Just for the record: While I have lived in South Louisiana for 20 some years against my wishes, I hail from Colorado and received my education in New England. I am not a Cajun. If John wishes to know of my lineage --it's German and Latvian --3-4 generations ago.

No region of the country taught me to say 'persons' instead of 'people.' Many Cajun people in South Louisiana often speak in the wrong tense and do not complete full sentences, when writing or speaking. This is what adds color and expression to the area.

The purpose of my letter with regards to recycling was not whether I said persons when, perhaps, I should have said people.

The purpose was to alert _people_ that other people who have the misfortune to live where volume reduction plants have located, are experiencing health problems from environmental pollution from such operations. It matters not whether those operations are pulverizing glass or concrete, incinerating soil to volatize the solvents, incinerating hazardous wastes to capture catalysts, or composting municipal wastes including what has been dumped into landfills and sewage sludge. No volume reduction operation, much less landfills and the very manufacturing of consumer products are without risk to the health of area neighbors when toxic chemical are used as ingredients in the manufacturing process. Increasingly, we are all becoming neighbors for someone's profit making, waste creation or waste reduction operation regardless of where we choose to live and how we express ourselves.

Having said this. Let's drop the issue of how people choose or not choose to write...especially when letters are composed in the wee hours of the morning.=20

Thanks. Susan Snow

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:04:01 -0800 (PST) From: Boston CWA 486 <bostoncwa@cleanwater.org> Subject: compact disks

Reuse is generally best. The old software is probably of use to someone somewhere on the globe... Because CDs are so durable/permanent, the direct reuse potential is very large. (I'm sure the manufacturers don't like this, and are pleased to see such rapid technology turnover that everything becomes "obsolete" in a few years, although the usability continues for decades.) The "art supplies" is a good suggestion. Neatly organized, if u have *enough* of almost anything, someone can probably use it. We need more/better materials exchanges (Very Good Use for the Internet). Plastic lumber is almost always a theoretical possibility for any plastic like this, as long as you can ensure no metal pieces mixed in, but that has to be about the lowest value, least practical choice. In addition to the standard CDs I assume you are discussing, there are CDs that can be written once, and others that can be re-written. The first can avoid waste when material uses only part of the disc, allowing additions/revisions over time. The latter could be completely reused. If you consider the information flows from your suppliers, these may lead to improvements in future materials utilization. Also, software distribution and updates can be done directly over the Internet, with "no" materials= used.

-k =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Keith c/o bostoncwa@igc.org total recycling - zero waste W.Rox/Boston, MA USA =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

At 11:53 AM 12/3/97 -0800, you wrote: > >Is there a way to recycle compact disks?=20 > >When computer software came on disks, we could reuse the disks and even >recyle them. Now with software coming on CDs, I am unsure of what to do >with them. Does anyone have suggestions? We have a large amount that we >need to do something with - I would rather not throw them away. > >Thank you, >Tara Pike > > 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)=20 > Tara Pike e-mail: pike@nevada.edu > Rebel Recycling Coordinator phone: (702) 895-1630 > University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) fax: (702) 895-4436 > (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8 (8

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 13:33:03 -0800 From: Ann Schneider <aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu> Subject: compact disks

Hi All:

Just a note on The RAFT, the materials collected are for science, math,=20 geography classes as well as music and art. The RAFT teaches courses=20 for teachers on how to use commercial discards for math, science and art=20 classes. The RAFT is trying to focus on math and science.

They can take materials that do not contain lead so some computer=20 equipment, ie., used circuit boards with lead solder can't go to the=20 RAFT.

A company caller Trotter Technologies in San Jose (2070 A South 7th St,=20 95112 408 993-9384) recycles software including CD Roms. They collect=20 materials from software manufacturers and not generally from consumers. =20 Perhaps you can get your local software distributors to take back the=20 discs and send them to Trotter.

Ann Schneider Boardmember of The RAFT UCSC - Bus. Env. Assist. Center aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:50:41 -0600 From: "RecycleWorlds" <anderson@msn.fullfeed.com> Subject: Compaction Ratios

On December 3, Victor Aguiar asked:

"Can anyone tell me the standard rate of compaction for a trash compactor? I've gotten several readings on this ranging from 3 to 1 -- 10 to 1."

The answer is that that is the range.

In part it will depend upon whether the compacting vehicle is a side loader or a rear loader. Rear loaders have substantially greater packing force than side loaders for the following reason.

By way of background, in rear-loaders two opposing blades are used to evenly distribute force on the material being collected. The push plate in the front of the body of the truck starts out at the beginning of the day fully extended towards the rear loading bay. A push blade swings down from back of the truck to push the materials from the loading hopper into the body of the truck and compact them. As more materials are accumulated and the pressure exceeds the maximum packing pressure, the push plate within the truck begins to recede and compaction force is held relatively constant.

In side-loaders, the packing force operates only from the front, pushing material from the loading hopper immediately behind the cab into the box. Due to wall friction and the lack of a rear compaction blade on side-loading vehicles, the compaction force is concentrated at the front of the vehicle where the blade is pushing the newly collected materials into the body of the truck.

It is for these reasons that the side loaders packing force is probably in the range of 3:1 to 4:1, while rear loaders can run as much as 10:1.

Bear in mind, however, that the differences are not as dramatic as these units suggest on the surface.

For the intervals between 1:1 and 2:1, 2.1 and 3.1, and 3:1 and 4:1, are not equal. Instead, they decline with increasing increments. A 2:1 ratio compared to an uncompacted 1:1 ratio shows a major gain, as only 50% of the original volume is now occupied. However, increasing further from 2:1 to a 3:1 ratio only reflects a 33 % improvement over 2:1. A 4:1 shows only 12=BD% gain over 3:1 in volumetric savings. From 5:1 to 10:1 the volumetric savings only increase from 80% to 90%, a 12.5% gain compared to the apparent doubling of the compaction ratio.

If you would like any further information, please do not hesitate to call.

Peter Anderson RecycleWorlds Consulting 4513 Vernon Blvd. Ste. 15 Madison, WI 53705-4964 Phone:(608) 231-1100/Fax: (608) 233-0011 E-mail:recycle@msn.fullfeed.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:21:15 EST From: Jango <Jango@aol.com> Subject: Compaction Ratios

Peter's response to the question on compaction ratios is very interesting.= I'd never thought through the math like that and it makes total sense!

My response is more simplistic - especially if Mr. Aguiar was asking about stationary compactors. The range is probably 2:1 - 4:1 (although it can obvisouly go higher if you want to invest in a high density machine) and if haulers make money on the pull it's likely that the compaction ratio will be as low as they can get away with. (this is where market economics meets technological prowess :-J ). In my own analysis I usually use 3:1 unless= I have a reason to suspect something different.

David Biddle Philadelphia, PA=20

In a message dated 12/4/97 12:31:17 PM, anderson@msn.fullfeed.com wrote:

>On December 3, Victor Aguiar asked: > > > >"Can anyone tell me the standard rate of compaction for a trash > >compactor? > >I've gotten several readings on this ranging from 3 to 1 -- 10 to 1." > > > >The answer is that that is the range. > > > >In part it will depend upon whether the compacting vehicle is a side > >loader or a rear loader. Rear loaders have substantially greater > >packing force than side loaders for the following reason. > > > >By way of background, in rear-loaders two opposing blades are used to > >evenly distribute force on the material being collected. The push > >plate in the front of the body of the truck starts out at the > >beginning of the day fully extended towards the rear loading bay. A > >push blade swings down from back of the truck to push the materials > >from the loading hopper into the body of the truck and compact them. > >As more materials are accumulated and the pressure exceeds the maximum > >packing pressure, the push plate within the truck begins to recede and > >compaction force is held relatively constant. > > > > In side-loaders, the packing force operates only from the front, > >pushing material from the loading hopper immediately behind the cab > >into the box. Due to wall friction and the lack of a rear compaction > >blade on side-loading vehicles, the compaction force is concentrated > >at the front of the vehicle where the blade is pushing the newly > >collected materials into the body of the truck. > > > >It is for these reasons that the side loaders packing force is > >probably in the range of 3:1 to 4:1, while rear loaders can run as > >much as 10:1. > > > >Bear in mind, however, that the differences are not as dramatic as > >these units suggest on the surface. > > > >For the intervals between 1:1 and 2:1, 2.1 and 3.1, and 3:1 and 4:1, > >are not equal. Instead, they decline with increasing increments. A 2:1 > >ratio compared to an uncompacted 1:1 ratio shows a major gain, as only > >50% of the original volume is now occupied. However, increasing > >further from 2:1 to a 3:1 ratio only reflects a 33 % improvement over > >2:1. A 4:1 shows only 12 % gain over 3:1 in volumetric savings. From > >5:1 to 10:1 the volumetric savings only increase from 80% to 90%, a > >12.5% gain compared to the apparent doubling of the compaction ratio.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 19:02:31 EST From: CRRA <CRRA@aol.com> Subject: Fwd: A little holiday treat

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--part0_881280301_boundary Content-ID: <0_881280301@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII

--part0_881280301_boundary Content-ID: <0_881280301@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline

Return-Path: <rgbest@ix.netcom.com> Received: from relay25.mail.aol.com (relay25.mail.aol.com [172.31.109.25])= by air15.mail.aol.com (v36.0) with SMTP; Thu, 04 Dec 1997 14:15:49 -0500 Received: from dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.1]) by relay25.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id NAA23398 for <CRRA@aol.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:40:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA14465; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:33:18 -0600 (CST) Received: from sac-ca5-13.ix.netcom.com(199.35.220.173) by dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma014405; Thu Dec 4 12:33:00 1997 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19971204103350.006bb524@popd.ix.netcom.com> X-Sender: rgbest@popd.ix.netcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 10:34:04 -0800 To: Kit Cole <kit.cole@asm.ca.gov>, Yvonne Hunter <huntery@cacities.org>, patrick_barnhart@tpg.sce.com, bookroom@midtown.net, Luke Breit <lukesac@tomatoweb.com>, "CRRA@aol.com" <CRRA@AOL.COM>, pjones@mrt.ciwmb.ca.gov, levyke@assembly.ca.gov,= logann@ix.netcom.com From: Rick Best <rgbest@ix.netcom.com> Subject: A little holiday treat Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Here's a little poem forwarded to me today > >Season to Recycle > >Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house, >Lots of trash lay in heaps ready to be tossed out. > >The packages were wrapped with barely a thought, > That recycled gift paper could've been bought. > >Comics and newspapers, that went in the trash, >Could have wrapped holiday gifts in a flash. > >Cardboard boxes were bound for the landfill this winter, >They could've been recycled at a local drop center! > >Greeting cards had been opened, then stuffed in trash bags >When they'd have made great postcards -- or even gift tags! > >Plenty of icicles and plastic hung on the tree >When pinecones and berries would look nice -- naturally! > >It was enough to make even old Santa shed a tear >"Another house that didn't recycle," he sighed, "Maybe next year!" >

**************************************** Rick Best Policy Director Californians Against Waste

--part0_881280301_boundary--

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 20:18:50 +0900 From: Green Korea United <environ@chollian.dacom.co.kr> Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #294

SUBJECT: Re: refillables in schools

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Green Korea has been trying to interest the Ministry of Education in the us of refillables or bulk dispensers for milk in schools. There is some interest but we would reallly like to hear more about other experiences such as the Boston example below.

costs as a percentage of the milk price, sucess or failure of particular methods and the level of enthusiasm from kids and parents would be interesting things to cover

lokking forward to hearing from you

Pip Walsh Green Korea United >=20 > Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 06:53:35 -0800 (PST) > From: Boston CWA 486 <bostoncwa@cleanwater.org> > Subject: polystyrene tray recycling >=20 > school PS recycling (don't know if its trays) is supposed to be happening= in > Boston; I could try to track down if u need. >=20 > sad news just recently that a company doing reuse of fancy plastic > refillables for school (milk?) is getting out of the business due to not > good enough percentage of containers coming back. Apparently they are > charging 25 cent deposit, and its not enough to cover their loses. Don't > know why they don't just raise the deposit to reflect their costs. I= could > also track this down... >=20 > -k > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Keith c/o bostoncwa@igc.org > total recycling - zero waste > W.Rox/Boston, MA USA > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 03 Dec 97 23:10:35 PST From: roger.diedrich@sfsierra.sierraclub.org Subject: polystyrene tray recycling

school PS recycling (don't know if its trays) is supposed to be happening in Boston I could try to track down if u need. _____________________________________________ My County's school district (Fairfax, VA) tried it with a vendor who= provided trays and took them back, but it lasted for less than a year, I think,= because as usual, "it was not cost effective". It did involve a lot of hauling. Do you want information about failures? Roger Diedrich roger.diedrich@sierraclub.org ________________________________________________

At 08:03 PM 12/2/97 -0600, you wrote: > >Anyone have information on elementary schools or high schools that >currently recycle polystyrene lunch trays? Also, anyone have information on >reusable lunch trays and the pro's and con's to both methods. For >reusable-how is the storage and dishwasher battle overcome? > >Any information on schools that are doing this would be extremely helpful!>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 14:24:42 +0900 From: Green Korea United <environ@chollian.dacom.co.kr> Subject: refillables in schools

Dear friends

Green Korea has been trying to interest the Ministry of Education ib the us of refillables or bulk dispensers for milk in schools. There is some interest but we would reallly like to hear more about other experiences such as the Boston example below.

costs as a percentage of the milk price, sucess or failure of particular methods and the level of enthusiasm from kids and parents would be interesting things to cover

lokking forward to hearing from you

Pip Walsh Green Korea United >=20 > Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 06:53:35 -0800 (PST) > From: Boston CWA 486 <bostoncwa@cleanwater.org> > Subject: polystyrene tray recycling >=20 > school PS recycling (don't know if its trays) is supposed to be happening= in > Boston; I could try to track down if u need. >=20 > sad news just recently that a company doing reuse of fancy plastic > refillables for school (milk?) is getting out of the business due to not > good enough percentage of containers coming back. Apparently they are > charging 25 cent deposit, and its not enough to cover their loses. Don't > know why they don't just raise the deposit to reflect their costs. I= could > also track this down... >=20 > -k > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Keith c/o bostoncwa@igc.org > total recycling - zero waste > W.Rox/Boston, MA USA > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

------------------------------

End of GreenYes Digest V97 #295 ******************************