|
|
| Author |
Message |
rcurl
|
|
Recycling
| 
Aug 23 17:56 UTC 1995 |
Recycling saves non-renewable resources and reduces waste and pollution.
|
| 18 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 1 of 18:
|
Aug 23 18:01 UTC 1995 |
I would like to download the AAYPSI recycling lists and procedures from
somewhere, but until then, I would like to ask, what is the proper/best
procedure to recycle used (kaput) laptop batteries? I would prefer if
there were a process for recovering the metals, and not just "recycling"
them into a hazardous material landfill.
|
brenda
|
|
response 2 of 18:
|
Aug 24 21:42 UTC 1995 |
Various stores in the area take used batteries. I'm not sure exactly
which ones, but Pyramid Office Supply in Manchester does :). They take
them to a recycling center that deals with those types of materials.
I don't think the recycling place deals with the general public, though :(
|
amoco
|
|
response 3 of 18:
|
Aug 28 01:06 UTC 1995 |
You know that REALLY cute mag. distributated in/with the paper? That can be
useful...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 18:
|
Aug 28 22:12 UTC 1995 |
Unfortuantely, you have to read all the cuteness to figure out how to
recycle what. I haven't been able to get past page 2.
|
ajax
|
|
response 5 of 18:
|
Aug 29 05:24 UTC 1995 |
There's a less cute version in the AA Observer, in the multi-page
"newsletter" the city government publishes within. They have a
one-page synopsis of how to recycle things. I really like the recent
changes...you can put junk mail (with plastic windows) and magazines
into your newspaper pile now, and they take more types of containers,
among other changes.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 6 of 18:
|
Sep 4 04:46 UTC 1995 |
When I worked at Sun Photo and customers would bring in dead batteries,
"Give me a new one like this," I would take the dead one and intend
to bring it to someplace like recycle Ann Arbor. I wonder how many
of those batteries are still mixed in with my junk. But I'm pretty sure
that all batteries should be brought to a recycling place so they
can be treated as hazardous waste.
Don't forget to fully discharge batteries before recharging them. That
helps push back the day they become hazardous waste.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 7 of 18:
|
Sep 4 07:00 UTC 1995 |
It discharged itself in about 20 minutes after being fully charged 8^{.
What I would really like to find is a recycler that *recycled* NiCad
batteries - not just disposed of them in a hazardous waste landfill.
|
wjw
|
|
response 8 of 18:
|
Sep 14 16:48 UTC 1995 |
There was an interesting article in the Reader's digest a couple months
ago. The point was that we are *not* running out of landfill space, and
that curbside recycle collections are an enormous unneccessary waste
of money. (interesting counterpoint -- I'm not saying I agree with
the article). The article stated, and I think I remember the figures
correctly, that the *entire* landfill need of the USA can be for the
next *1000 years* can be met by a volume of 30 miles X 30 miles X
300 feet deep. Interesting. Even if that's the case, I feel it's
not right to just bury good recycleable stuff, such as steel, aluminum,
etc.
As for us, we decline garbage collection in Pittsfield twp, which I'm
told has gone up to $38.00 per month. We recycle almost everything,
and what little is left is taken by Mr Rubbish, on a per-bag basis,
for $2.00 per bag. We make about 1 bag per month, so recycling saves
us $36.00 per month, or $432 per year, more or less. This is the way
to encourage recycling ... make it economically attractive.
|
randall
|
|
response 9 of 18:
|
Sep 14 17:19 UTC 1995 |
I've heard that 1000 year figure before. But that figure is based on our
current rate of waste production per each individual waste producing location
(i.e. household, business, etc.). It does account for population growth
, but that growth (I forget the figure now) is drastically underestimated
number compared to what sociologists estimate it to actually be. The point
being, if our rate of waster production stayed the same (which, economically
speaking, is not very likley), and if our population grew at their estimated
rate (which is not only low, but also constant, when in actuality it increases
over time), then then their estimation of our landfill needs WOULD be correct.
But that is obviously not the case.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 10 of 18:
|
Sep 14 18:22 UTC 1995 |
Ann Arbor went into curbside recycling simply because of the economics of
landfill development. That gigantic perpetual landfill is "impressive",
but the costs of getting stuff there would be prohibitive. By some
coincidence, it has been stated that the total electrical power needs of
the USA can be met with a 30 mile x 30 mile array of solar cells. I
suspect that this "30 mile" square thing is just a lot of garbage, but
that the correct figure would still be quite large - and totally
impractical.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 18:
|
Sep 14 18:26 UTC 1995 |
Well, we didn't succeed in *recycling* (in the sense of reusing the
materials) batteries. Let's see if we can do better on...
Electrical motor appliances? They contain lots of copper. Who takes them
back (maybe even for a little spare change)? I have a garbage disposer
with a frozen bearing. Who would *recycle* it?
|
gregc
|
|
response 12 of 18:
|
Sep 14 20:22 UTC 1995 |
I suspect their are local metal recyclers who would be more than happy to
take electrical motors off your hands. Copper is a valuable metal and there
are places that handle that sort of thing. Check the yellow pages?
|
srw
|
|
response 13 of 18:
|
Sep 16 04:25 UTC 1995 |
I. Friedman, 915 Maiden Lane 662-0317
They are even open Sat morning 7:30-11 AM
|
adbarr
|
|
response 14 of 18:
|
Sep 16 19:59 UTC 1995 |
What happens after the 1000 years? Another 900 square miles of
junk? Of course, it won't be our problem. And, I assume the
landfill companies will donate all profits to the Ronald
McDonald house. Could this be propaganda? Aside from the
politics, and the costs, recycling makes common sense in the
long term. The resorces are finite. And, from direct experience,
living or working close to a landfil, is not in my "Top 1 billion"
places to be. The people who have to drink water contaminated
by the inevitable leachate might want to differ with this
article.
|
wjw
|
|
response 15 of 18:
|
Sep 20 16:47 UTC 1995 |
Time works wonders. I'm sure the Romans had a lot of
landfills, and I bet they are now gone. Disappeared! Rotted away,
due to entropy. People are amazed that they can dig up stuff
that hasn't decomposed after 20 years in a landfill. As if
20 years is a long time! Give me a break.
|
ajax
|
|
response 16 of 18:
|
Sep 20 19:07 UTC 1995 |
Exactly. I mean, how many plastic milk jugs, cigarette butts, or
cannisters of radioactive waste do you see in museums of Ancient
Greek and Roman archeology!? Those liberal yahoos conveniently
overlook the fact that no "disposable diapers" that were landfilled
prior to this century can still be found!! Man, I think I'm gonna
call Rush with this expose' right now!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 18:
|
Sep 20 21:27 UTC 1995 |
Re #15: you bet those Romans "are now gone"! They were poisoned by
lead in their drinking water, and those old lead refining sites *are
still toxic landfills*! Of course, they used 0.0000001% of the amount
of toxics we do, so we have 1000000000 times as much toxic waste that
will be hanging around for the same number of millenia, and beyond.
(Give or take a few zeroes....)
|
adbarr
|
|
response 18 of 18:
|
Sep 23 13:04 UTC 1995 |
The Romans did a lot of other dumb things, too. And, as ajax points out,
the Roman Plastics Industry was in its infancy. Take a trip to the
southwest area of the US. Visit the cliff dwelling ruins. Look out
over the desert. Try to figure out where the forests went. Look
at the logs used in the construction of the dwellings and for
cooking and heat. At the bottom of the cliffs you find the landfills
of the ancient ones, part of their legacy, besides abandoned homes
and a ruined ecosystem. And they were only a few thousand souls.
|