Comments on: What About Where You Live? http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2009/11/what-about-where-you-live-2/ The EPA Blog Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:33:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.1 By: kaden http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2009/11/what-about-where-you-live-2/#comment-16054 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:07:57 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1158#comment-16054 i live a a state that is covered in 75% forest but my local towns place has a huge industrial park and i live in the middle of it

]]>
By: kaden http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2009/11/what-about-where-you-live-2/#comment-16053 Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:05:06 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1158#comment-16053 i live a a state that is covered in 75% forest bu t my local tows place has a huge industrial park and i live in the middle of it

]]>
By: Dennis http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2009/11/what-about-where-you-live-2/#comment-16052 Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:12:15 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1158#comment-16052 Erick,

As a matter of fact, throwing everything into landfills is not such a bad idea. Let’s use Nancy’s estimates of 0.73 tons per capita year, and an average population of about 200 million persons in the US during the 20th century. Now let’s assume a trash compaction to 40 pounds per cubic foot and 50% trash and 50% fill dirt in a sanitary landfill. We then can calculate that all of the household waste created during the 100 years of the 20th century would fit into a landfill 100 feet deep and 2.3 miles on a side (5.24 square miles). Just for reference, the land area of the 48 contiguous United States is approximately 3 million square miles. If we incinerate we can reduce this minuscule land requirement by a factor of 10. If we burn the trash in electric generator boilers we get an additional benefit of a small amount of electricity.

It sounds to me like you and your family has developed systems to extract every ounce of benefit from each of your resources. I am not certain that all that you describe is cost effective. For example, I suspect that your cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity is 3 or 4 times higher than the cost of commercially available electricity. I also suspect that your system is not widely applicable to a significant portion of the US population. I am thinking about Manhattan Island, for example.

I assume that by greywater, you mean the effluents from dish, clothes washers and from sinks and showers, that you send only your sanitary wastewater to the septic tank. You should be careful with greywater however, because it too can contain biological hazards.

You are correct, what you can do is a drop in the bucket. Unfortunately, not everyone, even if everyone was willing to tolerate the inconvenience, can possibly do a part.

]]>
By: Erick Mcguire http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2009/11/what-about-where-you-live-2/#comment-16051 Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:38:59 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1158#comment-16051 Wow, Dennis. Let’s all just give up and throw everything in the landfill, that will fix things, since the concepts of recycling and alternative energy are such a crock of hooey.

My family uses local plants in our landscaping and waters them with greywater, recycles everything that is actually recyclable, composts, and throws out a miniscule amount of garbage. We have solar PV and water panels on our roof, enough to provide almost all our energy needs. My backyard windmill has a mesh around the blades to keep our local birds, including the owls that live in our owl house, and the bats that live in our 3 bat houses, safe, and hey guess what, it still works great.

You do what you can at the local level, and like drops in a bucket, it adds up to a lot when everyone does their part.

cheers,

Erick

]]>
By: Dennis http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2009/11/what-about-where-you-live-2/#comment-16050 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:41:15 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1158#comment-16050 It looks like 80% of the material that the town recycles consists of high-BTU material. Burning these wastes in the waste to energy incinerator would be a better use for them. (page5)

You imply that all of the ripped up asphalt cement is reused in the replacement pavement. Normally, the concentration of recycled asphaltic pavement (RAP) allowed by building codes is 5% to 10% of the new pavement. That leaves a lot of RAP needing disposal. Where does it go? (page 7)

Burning household hazardous waste (HHW) in the incinerator does not emit “hazardous fumes into the air”. Destruction of organic compounds in high efficiency combustion processes nearly complete, between 99.999% and 99.9999% of all organic compounds never leave the combustion process. The minuscule residual has zero impact on the environment. (page 8)

Combustion of the HHW in the incinerator leaves no organic material in the ash that could conceivably cause any harm to the landfill liners. (page8)

“Particulate” is an adjective. “Particulates” is therefore a plural adjective; a construct not supported by the English language. Filtration removes “particles”. (page 10)

Addition of lime to the treated water also alleviates the slippery feeling you get when you bathe in extremely soft surface water. (page 10).

Again with the plural adjective. (page 12)

I do not believe that EPA has ever developed a credible link between typical (or even high) levels of radon and lung cancer, or any other disease. The entire radon scare was much ado about nothing. (page 13)

There is nothing inherently “environmentally friendly” about any of the alternative energy sources that you mention. Each has its own set of problems. Wind turbines are land intensive and kill bats and birds. Solar is land intensive, inefficient and creates hazardous waste disposal problems. There are no geothermal sources east of the Mississippi, unless you are talking about deep (5 miles deep into the magma deep) energy wells. Biofuels are land intensive, compete with food crops and are energy neutral. In addition, none of them or even all of them in combination can provide a significant portion of out energy needs.

You clearly have bought into the mythologies that use of locally grown produce benefits the environment and that legally applied pesticides harm the environment. Neither stands up to impartial scrutiny.

Recycling is a profligate waste of time, energy, money and national resources. Burning the combustibles in waste to energy plants, recycling the aluminum and placing the rest in landfills with the incinerator ash is optimum technology.

]]>
By: Brenda http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2009/11/what-about-where-you-live-2/#comment-16049 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:56:06 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1158#comment-16049 This is some good information. I live in Lakewood, WA and we have a beautiful creek called Chambers Creek. I have taken pictures of it at a few locations. The city has preserved it as naturally as possible because of the fish population. I have enjoyed it because of the birds. At one point there’s a fish hatchery for salmon that are released back into the creek. It’s there I have seen Ruby Crowned Kinlet.
Thank you for the tweets on conservation.

]]>