Today's Topics:
Another Tyvek ditty...sorry
corporate welfare bills may diminish more recycling
Direct from DuPont's Web Page
Re[2]: Tyvek in magazines
Recycling hazardous wastes into fertilizers: STOP THIS INSANITY
vendors for trays
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--- Loop-Detect: GreenYes:98/7 ----------------------------------------------------------------------Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:43:26 EST From: Jango <Jango@aol.com> Subject: Another Tyvek ditty...sorry
For an amusing little environmental web effect, go to=20
http://www.dupont.com/Tyvek/envelopes/page16.html=20
and see the environmental benefits of Tyvek.( I think you need to have a= Java compatible browser to get the full effect)...
David Biddle
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:05:30 -0600 From: sksnow@1stnet.com Subject: corporate welfare bills may diminish more recycling
The following message was sent to me recently. Thought there might be more persons here that would be interested, since demolishing forests means more corporate welfare and less paper resourfces purchased for recycling. Bunny Snow ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
FROM: "John A. Keslick, Jr." <treeman@chesco.com>
First allow me to state: We still support (H.R. 2789) The National Forest Protection and Restoration Act. Its very important that you do the same. That is for forest health and economics.
However, Now not only do threats remain from the U.S. Forest Service but
from the 105th Congress. Here is a list of bad bills! I SUGGEST YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THESE BILLS.
Please write your congress person and ask them not to support theses bills.
BAD BILL #1. The Quincy Bill (S.1028) in Northern California no only doubles logging in Plumas, Lassen and Tahoe National Forest, under the guise of fire reduction, it also sets a dangerous precedent by allowing local control of forests belonging to all Americans.
BAD BILL #2. The Chenoweth Bill (H.R. 2458) would take advantage of this
newly formed local control concept and apply it to National Forests all across the United States.
BAD BILL #3. The FY98 Interior Appropriations Bill has many anti-environmental riders in it that would increase road-building, logging, grazing and other environmentally damaging activities in our national forests.
BAD BILL #4. The Smith "Forest Health" Bill (H.R. 2515) would provide substantial funding for increased logging in the form of a new off-budget slush fund which would allow the Forest Service to keep revenues, under the guise of "restoration," for future timber sales.
BAD BILL #5. The Craig Bill (5.1253) would completely rewrite much of the existing federal law affecting our federal lands while limiting public participation, drastically increasing the power of the logging. mining and grazing interests, and is nothing short of an industry wish list.
Sincerely, John A. Keslick, Jr. Tree Biologist, Tree Anatomist , Professional Modern Arborist Member: The Bio-Dynamic Farming & Gardening Association, Inc. Plus Certified Chester County Master Composter
John A. Keslick Jr.---Tree Anatomist & Tree Biologist.- End Commercial Logging on Federal Lands http://www.chesco.com/~treeman/nfpra/index.html Organic Tree Treatment Web Site: http://www.chesco.com/~treeman
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:36:22 EST From: Jango <Jango@aol.com> Subject: Direct from DuPont's Web Page
To those still interested in Tyvek, I just had to get to the bottom of the technical data. This is right straight from the horse's mouth. See http://www.dupont.com/Tyvek for more. The post-consumer content info. is= very interesting. I would submit, in all that has been written that these issues are far more complex than we might first think. =20 DuPont says: =20 "Tyvek=AE is described as a spunbonded olefin - a unique nonwoven material= =20 created by DuPont from 100% high density polyethylene (HDPE).=A0The=20 manufacturing processes of spinning plus=A0heat and pressure bonding=20 creates a balance of unique properties.=A0This uniqueness enables Tyvek=AE to be used in many diverse applications where it provides more value=20 than paper, films, foils, or cloth.=A0Tyvek=AE is manufactured in both=20 Richmond, VA and Luxembourg and is available globally.=20 =20 *=A0=A0=A0*=A0=A0=A0*=A0=A0=A0*=A0=A0=A0* Envelopes made of=A0DuPont Tyvek=AE are tough, durable, lightweight, water= =20 resistent and contain 25% post-consumer recycled (PCR) content." =20 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! =20 =20 David Biddle Philadelphia, PA=20 215-247-2974 =20
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:32:30 -0600 From: "John Reindl" <reindl@co.dane.wi.us> Subject: Re[2]: Tyvek in magazines
Hi Amy -
Tyvek is very recyclable (according to DuPont). But even they=20 admitted to a local newspaper reporter that it wasn't recyclable=20 as part of the newspapers and magazines in which they put their ad.=20
Where's ISRI's Design for Recycling when we need it?
John=20
> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 98 17:50:01 EST > From: "Amy Porter" <aporter@bna.com> > To: b_nbca@dante.lbl.gov, reindl@co.dane.wi.us > Cc: GreenYes@ucsd.edu, Recycle@envirolink.org, Waste@cedar.univie.ac.at > Subject: Re[2]: Tyvek in magazines
> In the midst of all this discussion on Tyvek in magazines,= ironically,=20 > I received a press release from Dupont touting Tyvek as a material=20 > used for priority mail envelopes and other purposes that is made from= =20 > 30 percent (?) recycled content and is 100 percent recyclable. > So what was in the magazines that cannot be recycled? > Amy Porter >=20 >=20 > ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ > Subject: Re: Tyvek in magazines > Author: reindl@co.dane.wi.us at INTERNET > Date: 1/9/98 1:04 PM >=20 >=20 > Interesting calculation, Bruce! > =20 > It is absurd, both for the cost, and for DuPont, after causing the=20 > problem, to put the responsibility to clean up this mess on someone=20 > else. > =20 > But, on the positive side, the feedback to DuPont seems to have=20 > struck a nerve. Besides the response I got the other day from a=20 > DuPont official, today I have a good conversation with their PR=20 > firm, explaining the problems that Tyvek can cause for paper=20 > recyclers. Part of the discussion included who is really responsible=20 > for making sure that this problem doesn't happen again. So, we may=20 > be able to get manufacturers and advertisers to think about their=20 > impacts on recycling more in the future and have some better=20 > discussions on manufacturers' responsibility and extended product=20 > responsibility. > =20 > The contact at DuPont is Maryanne McGuire. Her phone number is=20 > (800)448-9835; fax is (800)203-0013. For the PR firm, the contact is=20 > Malea Brown. Her phone number is (202)393-5247; fax is=20 > (202)393-5221. Both are interested in hearing from others on the=20 > impacts of Tyvek on paper recycling. > =20 > John Reindl, Recycling Manager > Dane County, WI > =20 > =20 > > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 98 13:09:40 PST > > From: b_nbca@dante.lbl.gov (Bruce Nordman)=20 > > To: greenyes@UCSD.Edu > > Subject: Tyvek in magazines > =20 > > Someone said: > >=20 > > > DuPont has acknowledged that while the Tyvek ad is not recyclable mixed in=20 > > > with paper, Tyvek material by itself is recyclable and they will be glad to > > > do so if people will take a pair of scissors, cut out the ads, and send them > > > to DuPont Tyvek, DMP LR2E5, Box 80705, Wilmington, Delaware= 19880-0705. > >=20 > > This is absurd. I don't know how much Tyvek weighs per unit area, but= =20 > > supposing that it is twice as heavy as copy paper, then there are > > 100,000 sheets of 8.5x11 Tyvek per ton. Spending $.32 on postage=20 > > (assuming no envelope--a rash assumption) for these implies a cost > > of $32,000/ton for the recycling--assuming no labor costs on either=20 > > end (also ridiculous). I think that anyone can think of better uses=20 > > for $32,000 than to recycle one ton of Tyvek. > >=20 > > Either the DuPont people are clueless or they think that the rest=20 > > of us are. > >=20 > > --Bruce > >=20 > > Bruce Nordman > > BNordman@LBL.gov > > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory=20 > > 510-486-7089; fax: 510-486-4673 > > http://eande.lbl.gov/BEA/People/b_nordman.html=20 > >=20 > =20 > reindl@co.dane.wi.us > (608)267-1533 - fax > (608)267-8815 - phone >=20 >=20
reindl@co.dane.wi.us (608)267-1533 - fax (608)267-8815 - phone
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 01:14:50 -0600 From: Susan Snow <sksnow@1stnet.com> Subject: Recycling hazardous wastes into fertilizers: STOP THIS INSANITY
The third paragraph of the Thursday, Jan. 8, 1998 Seattle Times article, says it all:
''..There is virtually no regulation of fertilizers in the United States...Some heavy industries are recycling hazardous wastes into fertilizer without the knowledge of the farmers who buy them'' or the general public.
The title of the article by Duff Wilson is: ''Gov. Locke: Washington should be 1st to limit toxins in fertilizers'' [At the web site: http://www.seattletimes.com/extra/search.html search for the words: <virtually no regulation> at ''This past week''.]
Increasingly, consumers are switching from conventionally-grown agriculture to certified organic agriculture. This may be due to the concerns for chemical pesticides and fertilizers, genetically-altered seeds (which allow vegetation to withstand more toxic herbicides and other pesticides), and hormones (such as rGBh) that make cows produce more milk --hence, require more antibiotics; increased factory farms where animals are cooped up in pens unable to lie down or turn around and receive potentially toxic food, including diseased animal parts, more parasites, viruses, and disease (hence, more antibiotics and drugs); because of the irradiation with nuclear waste and other adultrations.
Up until the federal regulations on certified organic agriculture go into effect, certified organic has been the safest agriculture in the United States. Most states, including California did NOT allow certified organic agriculture to use municipal sewage sludge, genetically engineering, or irradiation. However, states won't have rights for regulations stronger than the federal government once the USDA regulations go into effect....UNLESS CONSUMERS MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD.
On December 26, 1997, a Washington Post article entitled, Organic Proposal Leaves a Bad Taste in Some Mouths, said:
When advocates **of organic products delved into the fine print of the recently proposed rule, they were horrified to find that the idea of organic and the high standards associated with it may be adulterated by inclusion of municipal sewer system sludge, irradiated food and genetically engineered products. They also object to the possibility that animals could be raised under some circumstances without access to the outdoors.
**Their worst nightmare, said Margaret Mellon, director of agriculture and biotechnology at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is that a "free-range" chicken could be an "irradiated chicken that never sees the light of day that eats food that was grown on toxic sludge." ...[M]unicipal sludge -- or biosolids as it's politely called --genetically engineered organisms and irradiated foods were specifically given thumbs down by the 14-person board..."These three things were taken up by the board and determined not to be compatible with the criteria we were required to review materials by," said Michael Sligh, founding chairman of the National Organic Standards Board.**
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-12/26/123l-122697-idx.ht= ml
WHAT'S In MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SLUDGE? Peter Montague of the Environmental Research Foundation, writes:
''...[M]ost sewage treatment plants receive industrial toxic wastes, which are then mixed with the human wastes, creating a poorly-understood mixture of nutrients and industrial poisons. Furthermore, many American cities have built sewage systems that mix storm water runoff with the regular sewage; every time a rain storm scours these cities' streets, additional toxins are added to the sewage sludge. As a result, sewage sludge contains a strange brew of nutrients laced with low levels of PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls]; dioxins and furans; chlorinated pesticides [such as DDT, DDD, DDE, dieldrin, aldrin, endrin, chlordane, heptachlor, lindane, mirex, kepone, 2,4,5-T, and 2,4-D]; carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]; heavy metals [arsenic, mercury, lead, selenium, cadmium, etc.]; bacteria, viruses, parasitic worms, and fungi;[1] industrial solvents; asbestos; petroleum products, and on and on. American industry uses roughly 70,000 different chemicals and any of these can be found in sewage sludge --depending on who's pouring what down the drain at any given time and place. In addition to the original chemicals, unique metabolites and degradation products develop anew in sludge. To give but one example: trimethylamine can be converted to the powerful carcinogen, dimethylnitrosamine.[2] ..'' http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r561.html
The Cornell Cooperative Extension publication, LAND APPLICATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGES has identified the toxic metals that are typically found in municipal sewage sludge and compares this to the allowance of the USEPA's 503 regulations. See the chart near the bottom of the article.=20 For example, Arsenic has the typical concentration of 3 - 10 parts per million, yet EPA 503 regulations allow 41 parts per million and EPA's 503 cumulative limit is overly conservative, says Cornell. http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/wmi/Recommends.html
Irradiation does nothing for the toxic heavy metals or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sewage sludge. Therefore, the USDA is apparently using the nuclear waste to kill viruses and any parasitic worms that are not killed in the proper composting temperatures. But even low levels of radiation is an additional carcinogen for humans and other animals.
WHAT CAN WE DO TO STOP THIS INSANITY?
This is a sample of what some people are writing to the USDA, and we'd love to see a couple of million people following suit. Anyone is welcome to use it or distribute it to others to do the same. Remember, WE ONLY HAVE UNTIL MARCH 15 to AMEND the actual content of the regulations (which can be found at the USDA web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop ):.
Eileen S. Stommes, Deputy Administrator USDA-AMS-TM-NOP Room 4007-So. Ag. Stop 0275 P.O. Box 96456 Washington, DC 20090-6456
Docket #TMD-94-00-2
Dear Ms. Stommes:
The USDA's proposed organic standards should follow the recommendations from the organic sector, especially from the National Organic Standards Board. Defining organic should not be a product of political pressure, popular referendum, or input from outside the organic sector.
There should be no place in organic production for intensive livestock confinement, feeding rendered animals to cows or other herbivorous livestock, and policies or procedures which favor industrial-type farming over small family farms--such as high certification fees and relaxed standards governing additives and synthetics.
The standards should prohibit genetic engineering and irradiation , used
either directly or indirectly in foods, processing agents, flavorings, colorings, additives, enzymes, livestock feed, fertilizers, or other agricultural inputs. These have never been a part of the organic tradition, and there's no reason for them to be included now. The same is true for municipal sewage sludge,
For additional issues that relate more directly to the farmers than to consumers, I urge you to follow the recommendations of the organic farmers themselves, individually and through their associations and accreditation bodies. They are the ones who have made the organic label
what it is today, and it is their example that the proposed Rule should be codifying nationwide.
Sincerely yours,
************** If you prefer, you can fax your letter to Ms. Stommes at (202) 690-4632
To help ensure that the USDA properly records your comments, an anti-genetic engineering group has volunteered to keep an independent record. Send copies of letters or online comments to Mothers for Natural Law (mothers@lisco.com) PO Box 1177, Fairfield, IA 52556 -or fax to them at (515) 472-2683
You could also send your response to hometown/homestate news media and to representatives in state and federal government, even urging them to follow suit. *** =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 18:12:53 -0600 From: "GAVIN" <bovi@worldnet.att.net> Subject: vendors for trays
Thanks to all who replied to an earlier message about using polystyrene lunch trays vs reusables. As a follow up, does anyone know of any vendors that make lunch trays out of #1 or #2 plastics?
I apologize for any cross postings. Thanks for the help! Megan
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V98 #7 ******************************