Protecting yourself

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 3:48:59 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 07:42:12 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/13/2019 11:12 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 06:19:34 +0700, John B.
wrote:

However I note that as a result of the U.S. presidential ban on some
imports from China the Chinese have, in return, banned the shipment
of most types of plastic waste from the U.S. and Malaysia, Taiwan,
Thailand and Vietnam also are also placing bans on the import of
plastic waste from the U.S.

No sweat. We can ship it to Indianapolis.


It's a difficult problem:
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/recycl...te-pet-2877869

labor and energy inputs are high compared to new material.

Here empty PET drink bottles are salable. I see people who harvest
garbage cans collecting large bags fill of them, so apparently
recycling them is a profitable business here.
(a quick look showed nearly 30 PET recycling companies in a country
only slightly larger then the state of California)
--
cheers,

John B.

There was a recycling charge put on the bottles so that a return of perhaps 15 cents apiece made it valuable enough that there were several old Chinese people in the neighborhood that actually made a living off of it.

On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 9:27:07 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:37:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

But, said my friend, money made by recycling was not taxed.
(Californians may want to chime in on whether that was true - for me,
it's just hearsay.) So the guy spent all his time bicycling around,
collecting roadside aluminum cans to supplement his income.

I don't know, and could not find anything definitive with Google.
However, the continuing decline in the number of recycling centers in
California seems to indicate that recycling is NOT a thriving
business.
"What the Heck Is Up With California’s Recycling Program?"
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/california-recycling-program-fail/
All told, nearly one-third of California’s recycling
centers have gone out of business.
Note that this article is from Aug 2016, well before Trump started his
trade war with China.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

I believe that they reduced the recycling refunds and sure enough the center right next to the supermarket I use is out of business. This appears to me to be more of a government policy than a comment on the cost of recycling the plastic itself.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 09:20:41 -0700, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

- Frank Krygowski

Don't you have curbside recycling pickup like you do with your household
garbage?

We do, but some containers have deposits charged on them, and as Frank
indicated, you have to cart them to the "recycling device' to recover
your money in the form of a shopping credit.

I'vemnot seen anyone n the two years since this scheme was established
that rode their bicycle to the return pont. All motor vehicles.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:58:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:



BTW, thanks for the new vocabulary word. I used to be an engineer in a
plastic processing factory, but I never heard the word "nurdle." We
called them pellets.

An industrial engineering friend also called them pellets, but 'nurdles"
was the term used in a recycking book and in various news media reports
on plastic pollution.vUnless I've mis-remembered.

Don't you have curbside recycling pickup like you do with your
household garbage?

Yes. But curbside recycling has energy costs, and I'm sure much of the
stuff we recycle has little monetary value.

My guesses (with no research): Aluminum is probably highest value. Steel
and glass may be next. But I suspect PET, polyethylene and newsprint are
low enough in value that recycling them may be a net loss.

The economic equation also includes the cost of land filling them, so
that may entise communities to sell them below 'cost'

I've mentioned this before, but we can "recycle" shopping bags only by
dropping them in a big bin at the grocery store. The manager of the main
township recycling center said those are actually never recycled; that
there's no practical market for those, so they're actually dumped.

Perhaps he was mistaken, but I'm sure it's not easy to design processing
machinery that wouldn't be prone to clogging, jamming, etc. by that thin
film.

I understand the current fashionable method being developed is shredding
and then desolving them under heat and pressure in a catalyst bath of
sort, then selling the "crude".

FWIW, our general rubbish is still the target for a lot of potentially
recycable material.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 07:42:25 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/14/2019 11:50 PM, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 07:28:52 -0700, jbeattie wrote:

On Thursday, June 13, 2019 at 4:20:17 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:

However I note that as a result of the U.S. presidential ban on some
imports from China the Chinese have, in return, banned the shipment
of most types of plastic waste from the U.S. and Malaysia, Taiwan,
Thailand and Vietnam also are also placing bans on the import of
plastic waste from the U.S.

Even before the trade war, China was rejecting our recycled plastic --
and even scrap steel. The recyclables market has crashed. With the
trade wars, its crashing more.

My understanding is that at one stage, China was tacking every bit of
scrap metal it coud and now it has a massive stock pile and canonly buy
the best/cheapest.

At one stage, pre WWI, this country was bing ransacked to sell scrap
iron to Japan. That later came back in bombs and bullets. i hope the
same does come about with China. Trump seems to be bent on creating the
same conditions that lead to the Japanese entering WWI in the Pacific
yet again.


You meant the Pacific War probably. In The Great War, Japan was among
the Allies,

Yep, left off an I.

although AFAIK only antisubmarine patrols by the Japanese
Navy in the Mediterranean.

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle.

I am not "alone". Even using the figures from NASA and NOAA 46% of
scientists deny that there could be any warming beyond natural climatic
variability. When you actually look into it NASA and NOAA have actually
counterfeited the records. They had a problem in that the Weather
Satellite temperature readings from 1978 onwards didn't show any heating
and Dr Roy Spencer, the original science manager of the weather
satellite program, finally resigned when he could no longer stand the
blatant lies of the NASA and NOAA climate divisions. He expressed the
belief that these two would very soon begin counterfeiting the satellite
records to match their computer models and that is now exactly what they
have been doing.

Tony Heller wrote a program that allows him to search the daily
newspaper records of every newspaper that presently has computerized
their records. This gives pretty good records back to the 1850's. But
actually looking at the daily records in spots all over the world you
can see that NASA has actually lied about practically everything. They
have been working VERY hard to make the actual records look like their
worthless computer models.

You and he obviously do not understand the physics of temerature
recording. I wont bother posting a link, but there is an excellent
explanation on the web if you want to search for it.

FWIW, I can acess three temperature records for where I live and the
actual 'values" are only loosely coupled and one often varies from the
average be a significant amount.

There is also another report on the web lookng at the "variation" of
those readings and ointig out that whie the actual "readings" seem to be
similar to past cyces, there is n actuall fact a lot more "shuddering/
oscillation" creaping into the recorded temperature. Which fits in the
the "global warming hypothesis" which is that there is now more energy in
"the climate" and we are now seeking more(number of, not peaks) extremes.

As for shipping plastic. Pardon me, but do you know the difference
between selling recyclable plastic and flushing it down the rivers?

Interestingly, the market is mostly global and thus the economics are
that it generally goes by ship in some form of containerisation. I stand
to be educated that it is actually clocking up frequent flyer miles.

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 8:57:36 AM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 12:58:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:



BTW, thanks for the new vocabulary word. I used to be an engineer in a
plastic processing factory, but I never heard the word "nurdle." We
called them pellets.

An industrial engineering friend also called them pellets, but 'nurdles"
was the term used in a recycking book and in various news media reports
on plastic pollution.vUnless I've mis-remembered.

Don't you have curbside recycling pickup like you do with your
household garbage?

Yes. But curbside recycling has energy costs, and I'm sure much of the
stuff we recycle has little monetary value.

My guesses (with no research): Aluminum is probably highest value. Steel
and glass may be next. But I suspect PET, polyethylene and newsprint are
low enough in value that recycling them may be a net loss.

The economic equation also includes the cost of land filling them, so
that may entise communities to sell them below 'cost'

I've mentioned this before, but we can "recycle" shopping bags only by
dropping them in a big bin at the grocery store. The manager of the main
township recycling center said those are actually never recycled; that
there's no practical market for those, so they're actually dumped.

Perhaps he was mistaken, but I'm sure it's not easy to design processing
machinery that wouldn't be prone to clogging, jamming, etc. by that thin
film.

I understand the current fashionable method being developed is shredding
and then desolving them under heat and pressure in a catalyst bath of
sort, then selling the "crude".

FWIW, our general rubbish is still the target for a lot of potentially
recycable material.

Our idiot of a Prime Minister is on the campaign trail and thus anything he says can be take with a grain of salt. He recently announced hat Canada will ban single use plastic items by 2021.

A lot of people are saying he won't be Prime Minister after the election this October.

Cheers

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 13:18:08 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle.

I am not "alone". Even using the figures from NASA and NOAA 46% of
scientists deny that there could be any warming beyond natural climatic
variability. When you actually look into it NASA and NOAA have actually
counterfeited the records. They had a problem in that the Weather
Satellite temperature readings from 1978 onwards didn't show any heating
and Dr Roy Spencer, the original science manager of the weather
satellite program, finally resigned when he could no longer stand the
blatant lies of the NASA and NOAA climate divisions. He expressed the
belief that these two would very soon begin counterfeiting the satellite
records to match their computer models and that is now exactly what they
have been doing.

Tony Heller wrote a program that allows him to search the daily
newspaper records of every newspaper that presently has computerized
their records. This gives pretty good records back to the 1850's. But
actually looking at the daily records in spots all over the world you
can see that NASA has actually lied about practically everything. They
have been working VERY hard to make the actual records look like their
worthless computer models.

You and he obviously do not understand the physics of temerature
recording. I wont bother posting a link, but there is an excellent
explanation on the web if you want to search for it.

FWIW, I can acess three temperature records for where I live and the
actual 'values" are only loosely coupled and one often varies from the
average be a significant amount.

There is also another report on the web lookng at the "variation" of
those readings and ointig out that whie the actual "readings" seem to be
similar to past cyces, there is n actuall fact a lot more "shuddering/
oscillation" creaping into the recorded temperature. Which fits in the
the "global warming hypothesis" which is that there is now more energy in
"the climate" and we are now seeking more(number of, not peaks) extremes.

Not to mention that "ice caps" and glacier are melting and seas are
rising.

But than, there are people who believe that the earth is flat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...arth_societies
https://www.livescience.com/24310-fl...th-belief.html
https://nypost.com/2017/06/01/some-p...world-is-flat/

--

Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 6:18:10 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle.

I am not "alone". Even using the figures from NASA and NOAA 46% of
scientists deny that there could be any warming beyond natural climatic
variability. When you actually look into it NASA and NOAA have actually
counterfeited the records. They had a problem in that the Weather
Satellite temperature readings from 1978 onwards didn't show any heating
and Dr Roy Spencer, the original science manager of the weather
satellite program, finally resigned when he could no longer stand the
blatant lies of the NASA and NOAA climate divisions. He expressed the
belief that these two would very soon begin counterfeiting the satellite
records to match their computer models and that is now exactly what they
have been doing.

Tony Heller wrote a program that allows him to search the daily
newspaper records of every newspaper that presently has computerized
their records. This gives pretty good records back to the 1850's. But
actually looking at the daily records in spots all over the world you
can see that NASA has actually lied about practically everything. They
have been working VERY hard to make the actual records look like their
worthless computer models.

You and he obviously do not understand the physics of temerature
recording. I wont bother posting a link, but there is an excellent
explanation on the web if you want to search for it.

FWIW, I can acess three temperature records for where I live and the
actual 'values" are only loosely coupled and one often varies from the
average be a significant amount.

There is also another report on the web lookng at the "variation" of
those readings and ointig out that whie the actual "readings" seem to be
similar to past cyces, there is n actuall fact a lot more "shuddering/
oscillation" creaping into the recorded temperature. Which fits in the
the "global warming hypothesis" which is that there is now more energy in
"the climate" and we are now seeking more(number of, not peaks) extremes.

As for shipping plastic. Pardon me, but do you know the difference
between selling recyclable plastic and flushing it down the rivers?

Interestingly, the market is mostly global and thus the economics are
that it generally goes by ship in some form of containerisation. I stand
to be educated that it is actually clocking up frequent flyer miles.

Exactly who do you think you're talking to? Yourself? The high and low temperatures for a day are recorded at National Weather sites. Don't tell me they vary from your stupid backyard $3 thermometer. These sites can be anywhere from hundreds of yards apart to miles to whatever. 60% of the world wide temperature sites that have US national approval are in the USA.

Using recording mercury thermometers means that you have to have a weatherman there to reset the limits twice a day. There is no "variation" because the manned national site is the ONLY measurement.

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 17:37:48 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 6:18:10 AM UTC-7, news18 wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 17:31:28 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:

Snipped all prior irrelevant stuff to Tom's polly waffle.

I am not "alone". Even using the figures from NASA and NOAA 46% of
scientists deny that there could be any warming beyond natural climatic
variability. When you actually look into it NASA and NOAA have actually
counterfeited the records. They had a problem in that the Weather
Satellite temperature readings from 1978 onwards didn't show any heating
and Dr Roy Spencer, the original science manager of the weather
satellite program, finally resigned when he could no longer stand the
blatant lies of the NASA and NOAA climate divisions. He expressed the
belief that these two would very soon begin counterfeiting the satellite
records to match their computer models and that is now exactly what they
have been doing.


Interesting statement as his blog actually says " Dr. Spencer's work
with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced
Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite."

I find it strange that he would make that claim on his blog if he had
resigned.

As for Global Warming, his blog, statement titled "Global Warming
Natural or Man Made" doesn't deny that global warming is occurring. He
simply argues the cause(s). Quite the opposite in fact as he documents
earth temperatures for about 2000 years in another article titled
"2,000 Years of Global Temperatures" that shows a fairly steady
increase in the earths temperature from about 1600. In "Latest Global
Temps" he shows a chart taken from NASA satellites that shows a steady
increase in average temperatures from 1979 to present.
--

Cheers,

John B.