More LandFill Material

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040126/tc_nm/tech_philips_displays_dc_1

Our planet is doomed because of technology.  Have fun living on Mars people.

Don't believe me? Wait and see.
Monday, January 26, 2004

I'm lost - you think a reusable screen that could cut the use of newsprint by 1/3-1/2 is a *bad* thing from an ecological sense?
Walk around the cubicles in your office and look at all the newspapers on desks and in trash cans. Now imagine them all replaced by a dozen devices the size of a pen that may only be thrown away every two years.

Now explain again how this hurts landfills.

Philo

Philo
Monday, January 26, 2004

Newspaper decays in a landfill.  Newspaper is much easier to recycle than these devices.  If you see what you describe in your office then you need to start a recycling program there.

Don't believe me?  Wait and see.
Monday, January 26, 2004

I meant to say that newspapers would at least decay in a landfill where-as these devices would not.

Don't believe me?  Wait and see.
Monday, January 26, 2004

actually, not much decays in a landfill. they're pretty well sealed.

mb
Monday, January 26, 2004

Actually landfills are built to support natural decay.  This is why they give off methane gas.  If nothing was happening in there, there would be no gas given off.

Don't believe me?  Wait and see.
Monday, January 26, 2004

"actually, not much decays in a landfill. they're pretty well sealed."

Most landfills are vented and designed to encourage decay. Indeed, many sites successfully recover the vented methane and run power generation equipment off of it.

Anonymizer
Monday, January 26, 2004

Landfills are sealed to prevent leaks and to prevent trash from blowing everywhere.  They are also sealed to provide a controlled decay environment.

Don't believe me?  Wait and see.
Monday, January 26, 2004

I don't know what the lifetime of this product is, but let's assume 3 years.  1 small probably highly toxic device as against 3 years worth of newspapers with toxic print.  I don't know if you've ever had the paper delivered, but a 3 year supply of a broadsheet newspaper is a hell of a lot of paper and trees.  I'll take the gadget thanks.

Technology is our only faint hope of saving this planet because human nature will never change.

Monday, January 26, 2004

The difference is that newspaper can be readily and easily recycled!

Did you choose to miss this point?

Don't believe me?  Wait and see.
Monday, January 26, 2004

Yeah, but the point of this is *not* to throw it away when you're done; duh!  You download your daily newspaper to it and read it.  No raw materials (other than whatever it took to make the electricity/device) wasted.

MR
Monday, January 26, 2004

The device would be more of a hazard to the environment when thrown into a landfill than a newspaper.

Monday, January 26, 2004

Figure the average newspaper weighs 3lbs.
3 * 365 * 4 = 4380lbs of newspaper vs. the life of one pen-sized electronic device.

So you are *honestly* saying you would rather that I cut down an acre of forest and put two tons of paper into a landfill than toss out one pen-sized device?

And last time I checked, paper mills weren't the most environmentally-friendly places.

BTW, I'm enjoying this - the landfill decomposing thing was news to me.

Philo

Philo
Monday, January 26, 2004

I am not saying that you toss out either one.  I'm saying that you make an attempt to recycle.

Newspaper happens to have a very reliable, readily available, well tested and inexpensive recycling process that makes recycling easy and worthwhile. 

Electronic devices do not exhibit these characteristics.

If you actually did throw all of that newspaper away, (I don't know why you would throw it away instead of recycling it.) but it would at least decay inside of the landfill.  The ink used now-a-days is actually more environmentally friendly.

If you threw the electrical device away, it would not decay, it would simply take up space.

So over time the newspaper is decaying and shrinking while the electronic devices are piling up.

As for cutting down trees, in the United States and I believe Canada, for every acre a logging company cuts down they have to replant that same acre.  This controlled cutting is what helps to prevent total deforestation and destruction.  Trees are a renewable resource.

Monday, January 26, 2004

The only problem with newsprint recycling is that it's not cost effective. Many secondary pulp mills (those that process newsprint) have to send stuff to the landfill now that many cities have recycling. Also, the US exports a lot of used newprint to Asia. Yep, something has to go in the holds of those container ships that were filled with TVs and DVD players from Asia.

What's the point of this topic anyway. If you don't like this product, don't use it. Taunting a group a techies would provoke many of us to buy one out of spite.

pdq
Monday, January 26, 2004

I doubt even half of newspapers would make it into recycling anyway.

Monday, January 26, 2004

If any body has ever lived near a paper mill he will know better than to talk about newsprint being environmentally friendly.

In Girona you used to measure the value of a house accoriding to whether it was windward of the paper mill or not.

Mind you, I once lived in a street with half-a-dozen tanneries, and the smell clings to everything.

Stephen Jones
Tuesday, January 27, 2004

One every three years? My guess is these things are not going to be popular unless they come down to the 5$-8$ range. At these prices they will be "free" with everything or just of a "use once and trow away variety", unless the true costs of envoronmentally friendly disposal is calculated into the purchase price. We all know how likely that will be.

Just me (Sir to you)
Tuesday, January 27, 2004

  Recent Topics

  Fog Creek Home