GreenYes Digest V97 #89

GreenYes Mailing List and Newsgroup (greenyes@ucsd.edu)
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:54:14 -0500


GreenYes Digest Thu, 24 Apr 97 Volume 97 : Issue 89

Today's Topics:
Bullets? Seeds? Hormone disrupting chemicals in plastics
Bullets? Seeds? Hormone disrupting chemicals when chlorine-bleaching pulp/paper
GreenYes Digest V97 #88 -Reply
In relation to their rec (2 msgs)
Susan K. Snow (2 msgs)
US Census on 1 CD
Wow (2 msgs)
Zero Emissions Research Initiative

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: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 17:18:22 -0500
From: "Susan K. Snow" <sksnow@1stnet.com>
Subject: Bullets? Seeds? Hormone disrupting chemicals in plastics

Mr. Muna Lakhani said:

>Many thanks for ththe info on plastics and their associated risks -
>I am becoming a rabid anti-plastics activist! and all ammunition >(bullets?
seeds?) are more than welcome!

[snip]
Hormone disrupting chemicals don't just affect females of various
species. They also affect males. For more information, see:
Introduction to hormone toxicity at:
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~mwarhurst/oestrogenic.html
Notice, Dr. Michael Warhurst has a section on phthalates--plasticizers
that are in some plastics such as vinyl chloride (PVC), modified
polystyrene, and possibly others. However, phthalates are also in some
pesticides --that kill insects, weeds, and possibly fungi.
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~mwarhurst/phthalates.html

But, that is not the only chemical found to disrupt the endocrine
system. Chemicals in liquid soap and detergents, and a variety of other
uses contain alkyphenols, which Dr. Warhurst says are estrogenic.
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~mwarhurst/ape.html

Bisphenol A is also a plasticizer and is called bpa-polycarbonate. If
you buy your bottled water (because your tap water is poisoned from
leaking landfills and agricultural/lawn care chemicals) and your bottled
water comes in 5 gallon plastic bottles, chances are it contains BPA.
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~mwarhurst/bisphenol.html

And there is more--too numerous to mention at this time.
What it all comes down to is we need to buy less and return to glass
refillable packaging, non-petrochemical products, and we deserve the
right to know so we can take responsibile care of our families.
Obviously, our corporate-owned government(s) won't take care of us.

Susan Snow

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 18:02:03 -0500
From: "Susan K. Snow" <sksnow@1stnet.com>
Subject: Bullets? Seeds? Hormone disrupting chemicals when
chlorine-bleaching pulp/paper

Why do we need to buy 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper or
purchase chlorine-free paper preferably made from Kenaf and fibers other
than trees? It's not just to create a market for recycling...

**In 1978, when a small group of biologists studying the Elevenmile
Creek in Escandia County, Florida, were "startled" (their word) to find
a population of tiny mosquitofish that all appeared to be males, even
though some were pregnant and were bearing normal offspring. [1] Somehow
the female mosquitofish had been changed to look like males; they had
been "masculinized"...In 1981, a population of mosquitofish on the
Fenholloway River in Florida was discovered with the same odd sexual
characteristics.** http://www.envirolink.org/pubs/rachel/rehw475.htm

Activists from the Florida (USA) panhandle tell me that they wanted food
fish tested, but the government would not fund those studies. Many
scientists, who work independent of corporate America, are afraid these,
yet unidentified, chemicals are mobilizing through the food chain. The
last I heard on this topic was that Proctor & Gamble, the corporate
giant who releases the chemicals into the Fenholloway River, is
compromising to clean up the river by proposing to build a 15 mile
pipeline in order to directly send these chemicals into the Gulf of
Mexico, thereby bypassing the river and allowing it to be cleaned up.
Crabs and other seafood are caught in these waters and shipped
worldwide. Crabs are bottom feeders and are very likely to be
contaminated. They could change processes and bleach without chlorine
or use tree-free fibers that did not need as much bleaching, but that
would mean they would have to change their process ...heavens no (:-\ .

There are many battles to fight and hormone disrupting chemicals affect
many industries. It's not just plastics, or pesticides, or APEs, it's
also organochlorines and products of incomplete combustion released from
incinerators. To bring this around to plastics, pthalates and
organochlorines are also used to make the computer on which I'm typing
this email. How do we fight this societal problem? It will take more
than recycling. We must buy less and return to basic materials, such as
glass, recyclable steel nd natural fibers grown without manmade
chemicals --less we all become hermaphrodites.

Susan Snow

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:38:05 -0500
From: Bill Carter <WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us>
Subject: GreenYes Digest V97 #88 -Reply

Susan K. Snow asks:

In relation to their recyclablility and markets:

What is the difference between a PETE soft drink container and a PETE
container that houses certified organic lettuce/alfalfa sprouts? They
both say PETE on the bottom.

What is the difference between clear glass spice jars and other clear
glass containers that hold liquids?

What is the difference between HDPE that containerizes milk or water
and those that contain liquids to wash vegetables?

Are we losing all markets for plastics or are only certain types of
plastics made from HDPE and PETE marketable?

.............

The coding system for plastic containers has led to considerable
confusion about recyclability. Around 8 years ago, as I understand it,
the Society of the Plastics Industry developed the 1-to-7 code symbols,
which are embossed on most plastic containers in a triangular chasing
arrows graphic, to assist in sorting the containers for recycling. It
quickly became obvious that using this coding system as a guide to
consumer recycling programs had serious drawbacks. The codes,
which refer to the primary plastic resin type constituting the container
(HDPE, PET, etc.), are not sufficient information to sort containers for
recycling. There are at least 4 other factors besides resin type that
affect how plastic containers are recycled:
1. Blow-molded vs. injection-molded. Bottles -- containers with necks --
are made by blowing the molten plastic into shapes and air-drying them.
Most other containers -- tubs, trays, etc. -- are injected into solid molds.
Blow-mold plastics are much more viscous than plastics constituted for
injection-molding -- the latter need to be "runny" enough to fill the molds
before they harden, and the former need to be "gummy" enough to hold
their shape in the air. So, an HDPE bottle can't be effectively recycled
into an injection-molded 5-gallon bucket without being custom-blended or
re-constituted, and vice-versa.
2. Even within the category of HDPE bottles, most high-end recycling
uses require them to be free of pigments -- thus the generally significant
premium for "natural HDPE" bottles such as milk jugs over pigmented
bottles like detergent jugs.
3. Some products tend to cause washing challenges in plastic bottle
recycling, such as motor oil. These containers are often rejected even if
they are made from the correct resin and mold types.
4. Even within the category of "natural" HDPE bottles, there are bottles
of a shape that is not exclusively and recognizably HDPE. Where visual
recognition is not reliable to allow quick sorting out of wrong-resin bottles
by shape, size or color, some recyclers will restrict what they accept to
reliable, large-volume, standardized container types such as milk/water
jugs and soft drink bottles. The reality for recyclers is that reading
plastic code numbers on bottles to sort them correctly, when they are
worth a fraction of a penny each, is not a rational or sustainable use of
labor. As effective mechanical sorting systems using ultraviolet
screening and other technologies become more widespread, this
problem is lessened, but the problem of receiving, screening out, and
disposing of large volumes of reject containers remains.

Plastics recycling technology is still a young field, full of ferment. Several
operations have used various resins and container types or even
mixtures of them, but some have not stayed in operation very long. The
recycling demand for the large majority of plastic containers in most
regions is not reliable.

A few years ago the Federal Trade Commission issued a guidance
document regarding environmental claims in marketing. In addressing Bill
Carter, Program Specialistrecyclability, it stated specifically that the SPI
resin code symbols with the chasing arrow symbol was not a deceptive
trade practice, although the general criteria regarding deceptive claims of
recyclability seemed to apply.

Bill Carter, Program Specialist
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Recycling Section, Office of Pollution Prevention & Recycling
MC114 P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087 USA
(512) 239-6771

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:38:45 -0700
From: Paul Tapley <Paul.Tapley@sonoma.edu>
Subject: In relation to their rec

Reply to: RE>In relation to their recyclablility and markets

Susan,
I have also had these questions. What I have been told is the "small neck
bottle" is the key to recycling plastics (for the best markets anyway) for
PETE or HDPE. I was told that it is the difference between "blown" or
"injected" as to how the material was made and how it is recycled. A #1 bottle
is made w/ a different process and thus has a different denisity than a #1
"clam shell" that holds a sandwich. (I still don't understand why it matters
when it's all melted down) I may be confused but I think it is bottles are
injected and the others are blown, and injected has a better market value.
With glass it seems who ever had the best lobby didn't get the redemption
added on... anyway, in Calif. if it's carbonated it's got "redemption value",
any other glass does not, for us it's a difference of 1 cent vs 5 cents per
lb. If anyone can correct me on the plastics, I sure would like to know
more...

Paul Tapley
Recycling Coordinator
Sonoma State Univ.

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 15:02:52 -0400
From: RJ Herman <rjh1@hopper.unh.edu>
Subject: In relation to their rec

Paul,
I'm not 100% sure about this, but the way I understand it, even though two
products might both be made out of #1 (i.e. a bottle, and a "clam shell"),
there are chemical additives in these plastics to make them record
different shapes. I've heard that these additives/resins effect the
recyclability of the plastics they're put in. (?)
-Becky

-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
R.J. Herman
Recycling Coordinator
University of New Hampshire
Grounds and Roads Dept.
21 Waterworks Rd.
U niversity of New Hampshire
Durham, NH 03824-3519
PHONE: (603) 862-3100
FAX: (603) 862-0139
E-MAIL: rjh1@christa.unh.edu

UNH Information:
http://unhinfo.unh.edu/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 20:29:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: STEVESUESS@aol.com
Subject: Susan K. Snow

As a recycler of plastics, and somewhat of an activist, I'd like to put
my two cents worth into this conversation:
First of all there is a small difference in what kind of PETE is used in
a soft drink container, which is blow molded, and one of those clam shells,
which are vacuum formed, they put the organic sprouts into. But both are
just as easy/hard to recycle from a technical point of view. The reason one
is recycled and the other is not has everything to do with bottle bill laws.
You have to remember that bottle bill laws were passed not so much to
recycle or reduce the waste stream but rather to reduce the litter that was
accumulating on the sides of freeways when the returnable bottles went away
in the 60's.
There is no technical reason we could not recycle far far more than we
are, including all that plastic stuff - Even better: There is NO technical
reason we couldn't eliminate a lot of the disposal stream at the beginning by
reintroducing refillables, adding reusables, and minimizing disposables in
tonnage and eliminating disposing of anything that can't be reused, recycled,
composted, or otherwise environmentally converted back into something useful.

As one of the founders of the Zero Waste Movement, and Chair of this
years CRRA conference on Zero Waste, I believe that sooner or later we will
have to do this anyway. Afterall we live on a finite planet with an
exponentially growing population - sooner or later the nonrenewables will be
gone, and we will have to change out ways. The only question is: Will we do
this before we chop down the last old tree or after? Will we do this after
we've burned all of the fossil fuels, and lived with the consequences, or
before?
But to get back to the topic: In my mind the reason for not recycling
more variation of PETE are purely "economic", which means "political". We
have an economic system which heavily discounts future costs, and does not
even take into consideration potential future costs. We have a political
system which allows money to speak louder than public opinion, which leads to
decisions that allow the externalization of costs, and allows the momentum of
large institutions and organizations to remain unobstructed.
For example, there is a lot of talk lately about those big bad evil guys
at Coca Cola and how they are despoiling the planet. Well fact is that they
and the rest of the gang are doing things that most likely will cause big
trouble down the line somewhere, but they are not people! They are
Corporations - they are nothing more than a governmented granted charter
which allows a certain kind of business behaivior to occur. The problem is
that this behavior is basically one that seeks to make a profit, or a return
on investment for its investors. It has no moral values, and is focused on
the singular goal of profit, irregardless of the costs to anyone else. The
people within these organizations are basically good people, just like any
other groups - with a few bad apples I'm sure. But just like any of us, we
do bad things from time to time, and sometimes we walk down those slippery
paths leading us to places we'd really rather not go.
What amazes me are the rationalizations people come up with when
confront with their evil doings! The problem is that we - the voters, the
very people who elect those who govern - have abdicated our duty to look hard
and understand how we are governed. We have allowed the creation of
institutions with rules and goals that need to be tweaked a bit so that they
can only make money by doing good things and not bad ones.
Everything else that we do is but putting a little finger into a huge
dike with many many holes. The whole thing needs to be rethought and
rebuilt.....until we do that - look at the BIG picture - we will not get to
where we wish to go!

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:54:30 +0200
From: muna@aztec.co.za
Subject: Susan K. Snow

Steve writes:
> But to get back to the topic: In my mind the reason for not recycling
>more variation of PETE are purely "economic", which means "political". We
>have an economic system which heavily discounts future costs, and does not
>even take into consideration potential future costs. We have a political
>system which allows money to speak louder than public opinion, which leads to
>decisions that allow the externalization of costs, and allows the momentum of
>large institutions and organizations to remain unobstructed.
> For example, there is a lot of talk lately about those big bad evil guys
>at Coca Cola and how they are despoiling the planet. Well fact is that they
>and the rest of the gang are doing things that most likely will cause big
>trouble down the line somewhere, but they are not people! They are
>Corporations - they are nothing more than a governmented granted charter
>which allows a certain kind of business behaivior to occur. The problem is
>that this behavior is basically one that seeks to make a profit, or a return
>on investment for its investors. It has no moral values, and is focused on
>the singular goal of profit, irregardless of the costs to anyone else. The
>people within these organizations are basically good people, just like any
>other groups - with a few bad apples I'm sure. But just like any of us, we
>do bad things from time to time, and sometimes we walk down those slippery
>paths leading us to places we'd really rather not go.
>
>SNIP

It is beginning to look, more and more,that we need to re-design the entire
economic system that has become capitalism today - no I am not a loony
communist, but am able to see, in very harsh detail, what capitalism has
done to my fellow brothers and sisters here in South Africa. Thor chemicals
killing workers thru mercury poisoning was simply a well publicised case -
the lives and quality of life of people are sacrificed at the altar of
profit; that is a simple reality.

It has become necessary to become an activist for not only Zero waste, but
also an environmental economist; a social scientist; and a researcher into
alternative and appropriate technologies - for example, a natural, organic
system used at a sewage works used on a pilot basis in Australia has found
the natural approach uses less landspace; is cheaper to run; provides good
secondary benefits (extracting organic matter for re-use, for example); and
does away with the use of chemicals altogether - the only area where my
knowledge is lacking is where they use UV light as the last stage to kill
off micro organisms - I do not know if that is safe or not; however, the
entire process is way safer than what is the traditional way of managing
this waste.

If one wishes to convert corporation to a sustainable approach, issues such
as plastics must become a focus - by the kindness of Susan Snow, even I who
considers himself pretty well educated on matters green, have discovered
exectly how toxic plastics are, and we need concerted action around this
issue - this will also have the spinoff of making people more aware of
toxics in their lives in general, and will be less likely to accept
greenwash at face value.

CAMPAIGN: NO plastic packaging by the year 2004? 2010? ... just a thought!

I must not waffle on - take care, all!
Mr. Muna Lakhani
CATALYST

Cellphone:082-416-9160
Cellfax: 082-131-416-9160
e-mail: muna@aztec.co.za
28 Currie Road - Durban - 4001 - South Africa
Phone: +27-31-20-28-291

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:42:11
From: Craig Cornelius <info@censuscd.com>
Subject: US Census on 1 CD

If you are interested in the only SINGLE CD-ROM containing
complete US demographic data from 67 Census Bureau CDs, for
less than $200, then please read on.

CensusCD contains the entire US Census, over 1.3 billion
demographics, with an easy to use yet powerful Windows
interface, all on one(1) CD-ROM. It is the best reference
for researching the people and housing of the United States.

CensusCD gives you access to demographics on population(2633
variables), housing(714), families(385), employment(301),
occupation(16), education(155), college(19), income(862),
White(250), African American(249), Asian(296), Hispanic(292),
Native American(267), language spoken(26), english ability(45),
poverty(400), renters(108), group quarters(38), commuting,
marriage(128), marital status(23) children(329), male(460),
female(460), ages(1300), military service(30), industry(20),
ancestry(118), ethnicity(160), disability(48), type of housing,
vehicles(48), phones(15), housing price, heating fuel(11),
plumbing(63), housing costs(175), rent(108), source of water(8),
source of income, head of household(900), and MUCH more, for any
area in the US directly from your desktop. CensusCD can easily
VIEW and PRINT this data, or EXPORT it to other packages such as:
SAS, SPSS, Mapinfo, Arcview, Excel, Access, and Oracle.

CensusCD is the most comprehensive reference of the U.S.
population and its housing available. CensusCD is the only
product on the market with the complete 1990 US Census (3,500+
variables for 16 levels of US geography, from block group level
up) on a single CD.

This data is originally sold by the US Census Bureau (data file
titles STF3A, 3B, 3C & 3D) for about $3,000 on 67 CD-ROM's. Some
data publishers have compressed the information down to 5 discs
for about $500 with only basic tools. Others sell smaller subsets
of the data with only limited geographic or demographic content.
GeoLytics, the makers of CensusCD, have developed advanced
compression technologies that make the convenience of accessing
all of this data from one CD, possible. CensusCD finally makes
access to the ENTIRE US Census PRACTICAL, AFFORDABLE, and FAST!

CensusCD's easy to use Windows interface lets users:

- Make CUSTOM DEMOGRAPHIC (from 3,500+ choices) selections

- Make CUSTOM GEOGRAPHIC (from 375,000+ areas) selections

- Select from 16 AREA TYPES: Block Group, Tract, County,
State, Division, Region, Nation, ZIP-code, Place, MCD,
MSA, 104th Congress, Urban, PMSA, ANRC, and Native American

- Create RADIUS area in miles around an address, zip code,
place name, or latitude/longitude coordinates, for
demographic reporting

- SEARCH for DEMOGRAPHIC variables by specific terms
(e.g. "Education") with the counts search

- SEARCH for GEOGRAPHIC names in the entire US or a
single state (e.g. all occurrences of Springfield)

- Input an address (ZIP & Street) to get neighborhood
demographics (GEOCODING to the block group)

- Easily BREAK DOWN reporting areas into smaller units
(e.g. all counties in California, all ZIPs in US)

- SORT (rank order) results in ascending or descending order

- Always know your next step through AUTOMATIC ADVICE which
appear at the bottom of the program's window

- Access over 25,000 lines of clear & extensive HELP
including the complete set of STF-3 documentation

- Produce reports in many formats, including ASCII and Dbase

- Export results to STATISTICAL (e.g. SAS, SPSS), DATABASE
(e.g. Access, Oracle), SPREADSHEET (e.g. Excel, 1-2-3), or
MAPPING (e.g. ArcView, MapInfo) packages

- Include latitude/longitude CENTROIDS, for every geographic
area (for use by mapping packages)

- VIEW, search, COPY into clipboard, or PRINT reports

- Run reports in MULTITASKING mode

CensusCD requires an IBM compatible PC with at least a 386
processor, Windows (3.1x, 95, NT), a CD-ROM drive, 8 Mb of
memory, and at least 2 Mb of free hard disk space.

Visit our web site at http://www.censuscd.com for more information
about CensusCD. Link to http://www.censuscd.com/features_f.htm
for more features information, including screen shots and sample
reports. At the same link you can also download a complete
description of the 3500+ demographics available in CensusCD. Link
to http://www.censuscd.com/tour_f_1.htm and take a GUIDED TOUR of
CensusCD.

CensusCD provides a superior interface, unmatched convenience,
extensive on-line help, geocoding, free technical support, and
A 30 DAY MONEY BACK GUARANTEE, for only $199.95 (shipping and
handling included).

For more information, or to order by credit card, call
1-800-577-6717, or 1-908-651-2000. Purchase orders can be faxed
to 1-908-651-2721, or mailed to PO Box 10, East Brunswick, NJ
08816 USA. Questions can be sent to info@censuscd.com .

Craig Cornelius
CEO, GeoLytics, Inc.

GeoLytics Main Office
P.O Box 10
East Brunswick, NJ 08816 USA
Phone : 800-577-6717 (for orders and information)
908-651-2000 (technical support)
Fax : 908-651-2721 (for PO's)
E-mail : info@censuscd.com (for information)
Web : http://www.censuscd.com

P.S. we spend thousands of hours surfing the web for e-mails of
potential US Census data users, or data providers. we will not
buy, rent, or sell e-mail addresses, or intentionally send to list
serves or news groups. this message will only be sent once (by
us) to an address. we appologize for any mistakes, or for sending
to those against UCE.








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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 20:31:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: STEVESUESS@aol.com
Subject: Wow

Boy, has the Coke conversation gone big time international. I am very
happy to have the likes of Mr. Muna Lakhani from South Africa, as well as the
gentleman from Slovania, and other nations joining this conversation. It
certainly has opened my eyes to some new perspectives that we lose here in
consumer central.
Thanks to all of you for joining in our conversation and efforts.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:54:33 +0200
From: muna@aztec.co.za
Subject: Wow

Steve writes:
> Boy, has the Coke conversation gone big time international. I am very
>happy to have the likes of Mr. Muna Lakhani from South Africa, as well as the
>gentleman from Slovania, and other nations joining this conversation. It
>certainly has opened my eyes to some new perspectives that we lose here in
>consumer central.
> Thanks to all of you for joining in our conversation and efforts.

I am pleased that we are helping to inform you about the rest of the world -
it was interesting to find, at last years Green Goods conference (OECD,
Norway) that we in the so-called "third world" have often better solutions
than others - we have not lost sight of the fact that in most of the world,
hi-tech recycling (and other) solutions are simply not affordable, and have
been forced to find other ways of doing things....

One of the things I think we all wish our brothers and sisters in
environmental activism would do in the USA - tell your people facts such as
the following (although I am sure that most of you are aware of them):

The West, with 25% of the world's population, consumes and pollutes to the
tune of 80% of the world's resources

One kid in the USA utilises between 40 to 60 times the resources than one of
our kids do (moral question: which kid has more of a right to live?)

The average USA citizen generates something like 30 to 40 times the waste,
compared to the likes of us 3rd worlders

The crass consumerism, as advocated by the American dream, CNN, and soaps,
etc. are the single largest threat to the health and well being of the
planet, and all who live on it.

This is not meant to be anti-US; simply a statement of fact, and as it
impacts on the entire world, is worthy of our consideration - other issues,
such as the on-going arms race (notwithstanding the dissolution of the USSR)
has huge impacts on the planet. For example, to innoculate every child on
the planet against the 5 most communicable diseases would only cost the same
as TWO hi-tech fighter planes!

Even more frightening: this year, something like 40 million people will die
of hunger, mainly women and children - solution? if the US, alone, dropped
it's meat consumption by only 10%, it would release sufficient food stocks
to feed those 40 million - I am, of course, aware of the politics of food,
corruption, etc. but that is a simple truth.

So, in a seeming retraction of a previous statement, the US CAN be the
saviour of the planet - however, until the form of capitalism that you have,
coupled with excessive consumption patterns, change, there is not much
hope.... it is only a question of time before the rest of the planet gets
wise, and refuses to support such unsustainable living, which will make
those necessary changes happen. How will the US react to that? Try and
takeover the whole planet? Over my (and millions of others) dead body!

Use less - waste less - care for others; all our actions impact on the
environment; close the loop in production processes, and simply ban those
that cannot! Too simple? probably.... what other choice do we have?

Kind regards to you all - this Sunday, we celebrate our third year of
freedom, and the third birthday of our fledgling democracy - I am certain
that all people of goodwill will wish us well, as we grow towards a unified
country, a unified people, where all may live in peace......

I shall be priveleged to be spending tomorrow (Friday) with our beloved
President Nelson Mandela, and will, should the opportunity present itself,
discuss matters green!

Take care...
Mr. Muna Lakhani
CATALYST

Cellphone:082-416-9160
Cellfax: 082-131-416-9160
e-mail: muna@aztec.co.za
28 Currie Road - Durban - 4001 - South Africa
Phone: +27-31-20-28-291

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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <david@kirkworks.com>
Subject: Zero Emissions Research Initiative

Check out the site http://www.zeri.org/ A short summary below:

The Zero Emissions Research Initiative of the United Nations University

The ZERI Foundation Charter
The Zero Emissions Research Initiative of the UNU brings together the
research centers of excellence, key industrial policy makers and corporate
leaders in an effort to eliminate all forms of waste from industrial
processes. In line with the quest for zero defects (total quality) and zero
inventory (just-in-time), zero emissions will become the industry standard.
The UNU serves as the initiator and coordinator, launching both the
scientific research which will lead to breakthrough technologies
facilitating zero emissions, as well as the design of sustainable industrial
policies.

Mission Statement
The Zero Emissions Research Initiative will undertake scientific research,
involving centers of excellence from
around the world with the objective of achieving technological breakthroughs
which will facilitate manufacturing
without any form of waste, i.e. no waste in the water, no waste in the air,
no solid waste. All waste is to be
converted into value added ingredients for other industries. ZERI also
assists governments at all levels in the
design of social and economic policy options for sustainable growth.


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

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 14:26:13 -0600 (MDT)
From: Allison Denise Nixon <adnixon@acs.ucalgary.ca>

UNSUBSCRIBE

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

End of GreenYes Digest V97 #89
******************************

$*$*$*$*$ 1 LINE REFORMATTED BY POPPER AT igc.apc.org $*$*$*$*$