But I think it is much nicer than the term "intentionally dense" (which is what he used) -- don't you think?
Actually, I didn't intend "intentionally dense" to be a name calling slam. I figured you were too smart to actually think lava and plastic were equally natural (or that you really believed the poster you were responding to actually believed it). Therefore I used that term to indicate that I believed you were just posting to start (or prolong) an argument without adding anything to the debate. If I was wrong, and you can't see the difference between plastic and lava, then surely I rescind the use of the term.
In regards to your other comments:
Yes, I have a terrible time with spelling. I don't use Windows computers outside of work and I don't know how to get it to help me with spelling from inside the website without cutting and pasting to a word processing program. I will readily admit to being relatively unconcerned with spelling and I know it can bug people. Sorry.
I am actually curious as to why you think human-scale time-spans are not relevant. You said that you didn't want to bore us, but could you try to condense it for me? The way I see it, if things degrade to their component parts at a rate that is somewhat related to the rate at which they are created (both human-scale) then they will not build up in the environment too much. On the other hand, something that takes hundreds or thousands of years to degrade (not human-scale) would build up almost as if there was no degrading at all. I do see that as a relevant issue.
Actually, I didn't intend "intentionally dense" to be a name calling slam. I figured you were too smart to actually think lava and plastic were equally natural (or that you really believed the poster you were responding to actually believed it). Therefore I used that term to indicate that I believed you were just posting to start (or prolong) an argument without adding anything to the debate. If I was wrong, and you can't see the difference between plastic and lava, then surely I rescind the use of the term.
In regards to your other comments:
Yes, I have a terrible time with spelling. I don't use Windows computers outside of work and I don't know how to get it to help me with spelling from inside the website without cutting and pasting to a word processing program. I will readily admit to being relatively unconcerned with spelling and I know it can bug people. Sorry.
I am actually curious as to why you think human-scale time-spans are not relevant. You said that you didn't want to bore us, but could you try to condense it for me? The way I see it, if things degrade to their component parts at a rate that is somewhat related to the rate at which they are created (both human-scale) then they will not build up in the environment too much. On the other hand, something that takes hundreds or thousands of years to degrade (not human-scale) would build up almost as if there was no degrading at all. I do see that as a relevant issue.
Wow, that's very nice of you: now I feel really bad (as I probably should).
I will not prolong the argument: I will shut up after this.
Re. 'human-scale time-spans,' I was implicitly assuming that you meant one typical human lifetime. If so (and I could have been wrong with that assumption), all I was saying was that there are many things that outlast us.
Quite apart from that, I honestly believe that plastics have helped make our lives richer and helped make us live longer. I am not an engineer, I am not a chemist, and I don't work for a plastics company (or for a for-profit company, for that matter).
Can you imagine life without plastics? I am just looking around me as I type this (among other things, recovering from a broken leg): no x-rays, no x-ray machines, no ballpoint pens, no computers, no computer bags, no iPods, no TV, no remote, no CDs, no CD players, no refrigirator insides, no toasters, no airconditioner, no second-hand on my watch....... I could go on about dozens of such things that we take for granted and enable our lives to happen (let alone make it better off).
All I was implying was that we have to make trade-offs. I'll go a step further. I will be blunt (and probably will have to take some flak for saying this): I can live with a few dead Australian (or any other country's) birds for some/all of the above.
And, I challenge anyone who is dissed by this to live without a shred of plastics in their lives.
Wow, that's very nice of you: now I feel really bad (as I probably should).
I will not prolong the argument: I will shut up after this.
And, I challenge anyone who is dissed by this to live without a shred of plastics in their lives.
You sadly should've shut up in the first place!
Nobody is talking about the impact of plastics in our daily life, they're everywhere and being very usefull. (Actually we should stop using fossil fuels to power our cars and solely keep it for future plastic uses, just a thought)
The problem is what to do after they've been usefull. Plastic products last for hundreds and hundreds of years and placing them in a forest will not see them just "disappear" and turn back to something that can be recycled in natural products (it is not a natural product whose compounds can be directly used by organisms).
Recycling means putting the basic elements of a product to a new use, like the heavy metals from batteries or motherboards.
Note 1: Using old computer casings for birdhouses is a cool thing to do especially if it means using less pesticides.
Note 2: It is being discussed in some media and scientific circles that some plastics give off estrogen (female hormone) like substances causing disruption in male/female ratios in some species (especially water born), the influence on human - or say bird- reproduction is not yet established.
Large effects from small exposures. III. Endocrine mechanisms mediating effects of bisphenol A at levels of human exposure.
I figured you were too smart to actually think lava and plastic were equally natural (or that you really believed the poster you were responding to actually believed it).
My post was in response to the one where he asked "Where does plastic come from?" inferring that dumping plastics back into the environment is okay because they are made from oil which happens to be natural. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it is safe. It just doesn't work that way. Oil is generally found deep inside the earth where plants, animals, etc. are not exposed to it. You don't want oil (or plastics with all the additives and extra chemicals used to process and refine it) to get into the water table for example.
Taken to the next extreme, would you agree to having nuclear waste dumped in your back yard? Why not? It originated from the earth after all so it must be natural. Nope. It all comes down to processing and refinement. Once you've done that it's no longer natural. There are some things you just can't undo.
As far as using the old Macs as bird homes I don't think it's a bad idea. They are old Macs made of older plastics that either cannot be recycled or were deemed too expensive to do so. It's better than seeing them decomposing in a landfill and leaking toxins like all those Lisas that Apple buried.
Comments
on a side note, thats where the tourist serial killer ivan millat did his terrible stuff,
Wow! Good catch!
Keep digging, buddy...You're doing great.
Digging for what? I am not being intentionally dense (honest!): are you being complimentary, or sarcastic or, perhaps, threatening?
No.
Well........., maybe.
But I think it is much nicer than the term "intentionally dense" (which is what he used) -- don't you think?
I really don't think so. It just looked like the application of a double standard.
No.
Well........., maybe.
But I think it is much nicer than the term "intentionally dense" (which is what he used) -- don't you think?
Actually, I didn't intend "intentionally dense" to be a name calling slam.
In regards to your other comments:
Yes, I have a terrible time with spelling. I don't use Windows computers outside of work and I don't know how to get it to help me with spelling from inside the website without cutting and pasting to a word processing program. I will readily admit to being relatively unconcerned with spelling and I know it can bug people. Sorry.
I am actually curious as to why you think human-scale time-spans are not relevant. You said that you didn't want to bore us, but could you try to condense it for me? The way I see it, if things degrade to their component parts at a rate that is somewhat related to the rate at which they are created (both human-scale) then they will not build up in the environment too much. On the other hand, something that takes hundreds or thousands of years to degrade (not human-scale) would build up almost as if there was no degrading at all. I do see that as a relevant issue.
http://ThunkDifferent.com
Actually, I didn't intend "intentionally dense" to be a name calling slam.
In regards to your other comments:
Yes, I have a terrible time with spelling. I don't use Windows computers outside of work and I don't know how to get it to help me with spelling from inside the website without cutting and pasting to a word processing program. I will readily admit to being relatively unconcerned with spelling and I know it can bug people. Sorry.
I am actually curious as to why you think human-scale time-spans are not relevant. You said that you didn't want to bore us, but could you try to condense it for me? The way I see it, if things degrade to their component parts at a rate that is somewhat related to the rate at which they are created (both human-scale) then they will not build up in the environment too much. On the other hand, something that takes hundreds or thousands of years to degrade (not human-scale) would build up almost as if there was no degrading at all. I do see that as a relevant issue.
Wow, that's very nice of you: now I feel really bad (as I probably should).
I will not prolong the argument: I will shut up after this.
Re. 'human-scale time-spans,' I was implicitly assuming that you meant one typical human lifetime. If so (and I could have been wrong with that assumption), all I was saying was that there are many things that outlast us.
Quite apart from that, I honestly believe that plastics have helped make our lives richer and helped make us live longer. I am not an engineer, I am not a chemist, and I don't work for a plastics company (or for a for-profit company, for that matter).
Can you imagine life without plastics? I am just looking around me as I type this (among other things, recovering from a broken leg): no x-rays, no x-ray machines, no ballpoint pens, no computers, no computer bags, no iPods, no TV, no remote, no CDs, no CD players, no refrigirator insides, no toasters, no airconditioner, no second-hand on my watch....... I could go on about dozens of such things that we take for granted and enable our lives to happen (let alone make it better off).
All I was implying was that we have to make trade-offs. I'll go a step further. I will be blunt (and probably will have to take some flak for saying this): I can live with a few dead Australian (or any other country's) birds for some/all of the above.
And, I challenge anyone who is dissed by this to live without a shred of plastics in their lives.
Wow, that's very nice of you: now I feel really bad (as I probably should).
I will not prolong the argument: I will shut up after this.
And, I challenge anyone who is dissed by this to live without a shred of plastics in their lives.
You sadly should've shut up in the first place!
Nobody is talking about the impact of plastics in our daily life, they're everywhere and being very usefull. (Actually we should stop using fossil fuels to power our cars and solely keep it for future plastic uses, just a thought)
The problem is what to do after they've been usefull. Plastic products last for hundreds and hundreds of years and placing them in a forest will not see them just "disappear" and turn back to something that can be recycled in natural products (it is not a natural product whose compounds can be directly used by organisms).
Recycling means putting the basic elements of a product to a new use, like the heavy metals from batteries or motherboards.
Note 1: Using old computer casings for birdhouses is a cool thing to do especially if it means using less pesticides.
Note 2: It is being discussed in some media and scientific circles that some plastics give off estrogen (female hormone) like substances causing disruption in male/female ratios in some species (especially water born), the influence on human - or say bird- reproduction is not yet established.
Large effects from small exposures. III. Endocrine mechanisms mediating effects of bisphenol A at levels of human exposure.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
I figured you were too smart to actually think lava and plastic were equally natural (or that you really believed the poster you were responding to actually believed it).
My post was in response to the one where he asked "Where does plastic come from?" inferring that dumping plastics back into the environment is okay because they are made from oil which happens to be natural. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it is safe. It just doesn't work that way. Oil is generally found deep inside the earth where plants, animals, etc. are not exposed to it. You don't want oil (or plastics with all the additives and extra chemicals used to process and refine it) to get into the water table for example.
Taken to the next extreme, would you agree to having nuclear waste dumped in your back yard? Why not? It originated from the earth after all so it must be natural. Nope. It all comes down to processing and refinement. Once you've done that it's no longer natural. There are some things you just can't undo.
As far as using the old Macs as bird homes I don't think it's a bad idea. They are old Macs made of older plastics that either cannot be recycled or were deemed too expensive to do so. It's better than seeing them decomposing in a landfill and leaking toxins like all those Lisas that Apple buried.