Globeandmail.com

Kerry would ban Canadian garbage shipments

Globe and Mail Update

POSTED AT 7:23 PM EDT Tuesday, Sep 7, 2004

Advertisement

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Tuesday he would immediately ban Canadian trash shipments into Michigan if he is elected – comments that raised the hackles of one Toronto city councillor.

“It's time to end Canadian trash dumping in Michigan,” Mr. Kerry said in a news release. “[U.S. President] George W. Bush has let Michigan become Canada's landfill.”

Toronto city councillor Jane Pitfield was livid when she got wind of Mr. Kerry's comments.

"The fact that John Kerry is taking a cheap shot at Toronto or Canada with this indicates how unworthy he is to become president," said Ms. Pitfield, who chairs the city's works committee, which has the responsibility of solid waste management. "This is an extremely serious matter."

Ms. Pitfield said the problem for Michigan is posed by the interstate movement of so-called "dirty garbage," not by the much smaller volume of clean waste coming from Toronto.

She noted that Michigan passed an act last March that comes into effect on Oct. 1 prohibiting a host of substances, including medical waste, beverage containers, tires, yard clippings and asbestos from being sent to Michigan. Ms. Pitfield said Toronto already forbids most of these materials at its transfer stations.

The city has also reduced the one-million tonnes of garbage it used to send to Michigan by 30 per cent, and will reach a goal of 50 per cent by 2005, she added.

"We have gone down to Michigan and legislators have come up here and they are impressed that a city our size has been able to be compliant so quickly," Ms. Pitfield said.

"I can't speak for the powers of a president, but I sincerely hope that re-evaluates his sensationalist comments that he made, which are clearly geared for votes. This is not the way to obtain votes."

Mr. Kerry said he wouldn't allow further shipments until the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency begins enforcing a 1992 treaty that requires Canada to notify the EPA for each shipment of waste entering the United States. The treaty allows the EPA to reject shipments for health or environmental reasons.

Democrats say the EPA has the power to enforce the treaty now. But EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt says the treaty only covers hazardous waste and that Congress needs to expand the EPA's authority if it wants to regulate other kinds of trash. Mr. Leavitt said in July that the Bush administration was working on legislation that would expand the EPA's authority, but that legislation hasn't yet been introduced.

Mr. Leavitt also has asked Canada to begin voluntarily notifying the EPA of trash shipments beginning early next year.

U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow and U.S. Rep. John Dingell, both Michigan Democrats, insist the treaty covers all types of trash. They said the Bush administration is stalling because of pressure from waste management companies and trash-exporting states like New York.

“I think that they support the interests that are making money off this situation,” Ms. Stabenow said.

Bush campaign officials didn't immediately respond Tuesday to requests for comment.

Mr. Dingell been trying unsuccessfully to halt Canadian trash shipments since former president Clinton was in office. Still, he feels confident Mr. Kerry “is seeing this situation the same way we in Michigan see it.”

Ms. Stabenow said the issue took on a new urgency during Bush's presidency because Toronto started sending all of its trash to Michigan in January 2003. Michigan now gets around 180 truckloads of trash each day from Canada, and Stabenow said one-quarter of Michigan's landfill space is now being taken up by trash from Canada and other states.

With files from Associated Press


Bell Globemedia
© 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Click Here

Well thats fine by me. We should get rid of our own garbage.

Well thats fine by me. We should get rid of our own garbage.

The place it's being shipped to in michigan actually wanted our garbage, not like we forced it on them.

then Elect Bush... 4 more years of keeping Canada that much cleaner :)

^ Frankly, it is time to fire up those incinerators. There is so much positive research about the safety of new incinerators that I really don't understand why so many are against the idea.

He's not that stupid going to ban Canadian garbage shipments.

"Well thats fine by me. We should get rid of our own garbage"

Well, we are - by paying to have it dumped into an approved michigan landfill site much in the same ways as many American communities ship their waste up here. (and alot of their waste is the real nasty stuff)

Are Be, you realize Kerry and Bush are fighting for every vote they can get, right? I highly doubt he will even remember this promise if he gets elected, plus Canada would probably retaliate by banning US imports of nuclear and toxic waste if Kerry were to do this. Also, Michigan would most likely have a lawsuit on their hands because Toronto and Michigan have a contract that has been approved by both sides.

Is Pitfield retarded? What would she say if we imported New York's garbage? I bet she'd be livid. We should start paying more attention to our own evironmental issues rather than getting "livid" over what other people have to deal with.

If Kerry wants to curtail the business in Michigan, than I guess that's his perogative. As a citizen of the planet, whether you put the garbage over here...or over there is really not the point as far as I'm concerned. If Michigan, or the US government wants to cease providing a service which they currently are, then that's a different issue....we can't force them to be involved in a business transaction if they don't want to be.....for whatever reason.

Maybe we will be more passionate about waste, if we don't have the luxury of shipping it out of site and out of mind.






KGB

Intersting thing is that Kerry (and my own Illinois governor) is in favor of:
1 Having drugs made in America.
2 Have them shipped to Canada.
3 Have them shipped back so they'll be cheaper.

How does this work without a lot of people getting seriously screwed? Or am I misrepresnting the "Drugs from Canada" plan being pushed by so many down here. Granted this is somewhat off-topic, but it does involve shipping items across the border.

I'm going to vote for Bush so Toronto can continue to dump its garbage in Michigan, were it belongs. :D As Gdoggy said, it's not like it was forced on them.

Wait a minute.. why dont the americans want our garbage? I mean, its only full of old poutine, nanaimo bar wrappers, and rotting beef carcases.

Mr Man dont vote for bush cuz of that dont even vote for bush he's an ass lol. Who really cares where the garbage goes just send it too the moon or outer space somewhere lol or some poor country, oh wait thats bad

The place it's being shipped to in michigan actually wanted our garbage, not like we forced it on them.

I used to live not far from the landfill near Carleton, MI. IT STINKS LIKE NASTY OUT THERE! If you are within one mile of that landfill, and the wind is blowing in your direction, you are going to smell it. Not to mention that thing is a friggin' mountain!

I guess there's one reason why Canadians should be Pro-Bush!;)

"I can't speak for the powers of a president, but I sincerely hope that re-evaluates his sensationalist comments that he made, which are clearly geared for votes. This is not the way to obtain votes."

She would be surprised at how many people in Southeast Michigan are very vocal about this issue...

"Is Pitfield retarded? What would she say if we imported New York's garbage? I bet she'd be livid. We should start paying more attention to our own evironmental issues rather than getting "livid" over what other people have to deal with."

We (Canada) already do import New York's waste - the hazardous kind

I've never understood why this is even an issue. As has been mentioned, the landfill is being paid to take our garbage...and they want it. It's not like we're just dropping it on some unsuspecting town. If the people of Michigan have a problem, they should take it up with the people who agreed to the deal in the first place.

I mean, pretty much everyone in NA has their trash sent to a landfill. So unless you're among the 0% that produce no waste whatsoever (excluding human waste), you probably shouldn't be complaining.

It's an important environmental issue no doubt...but the city has a lot of other things to worry about first.

GO KERRY !!!

It's about time Toronto and Ontario politicians started dealing with issues instead of sweeping them under the carpet, or in this case, down the 401. Better start planning to get rid of it here instead of waiting until the sky falls, cause it's going to happen sooner than later and as usual our politicos will be caught sleeping.

It looks to me like John Kerry is looking for some more votes.
Is George Bush kicking his ass that badly?

John Kerry should understand that is a lame way to earn vote.

John Kerry should understand that is a lame way to earn vote.

On the contrary, it's a perfect way to get votes. How many Canadians are going to vote against him in Michigan? He might even manage to force our lame-ass politicians to actually do something.

Off topic: in Michigan, the Governor happens to be Canadian. In 2006, I hope that Ted Nugent will be Governor to replace her. Ted Nugent is a Republican who is pro-life, pro-gun, and will deport all illegal aliens out of Michigan.

I never knew Jennifer Granholm was Canadian,,,,,,,,How come no mention ever on any of my local stations???
Anyhow, I would like someone to clarify something for me. Is it true that we Michiganders are buying the trash that comes from Toronto??? I've heard a couple people insist that not only does Toronto send its trash our way but we are gladly buying your trash as well????

I never knew Jennifer Granholm was Canadian,,,,,,,,How come no mention ever on any of my local stations???
Anyhow, I would like someone to clarify something for me. Is it true that we Michiganders are buying the trash that comes from Toronto??? I've heard a couple people insist that not only does Toronto send its trash our way but we are gladly buying your trash as well????
Well, this Havard-educated Canadian Jennifer Granholm needs to go since she destroyed Michigan to its core. I believe that Michigan will elected a conservative in 2006 once liberalism in Michigan slowly dissolve.

Is it true that we Michiganders are buying the trash that comes from Toronto??? I've heard a couple people insist that not only does Toronto send its trash our way but we are gladly buying your trash as well????

Not quite. Toronto is paying to have it hauled to Michigan and we are also paying Republic Landfills(I believe that's their name) so much a ton for it to be dumped in their landfill. So, in effect Toronto taxpayers are paying a private company in Michigan to take care of our trash.

So, contrary to what most Torontonians believe, the people of Michigan do not want our trash - just one profit-making company in Michigan does.

However, Ontario is taking hazadarous waste from Michigan as well, so it works both ways. I just think everyone should dispose of their own.

My biggest beef is with the politicians in Toronto and Ontario who have sat on the issue of Toronto's trash for years and didn't have the brains to do anything about it and then when the clock had ticked down to one minute to midnight, they grabbed at the first option to shove it out of their minds.

What would those screwball Europeans do?
Ah--- burn the garbage and use the heat created to :
1, produce electricity and
2, heat downtown buidlings, reducing demand for electricity.
NOW THAT'S SCREWBALL! Let's not have any of that here!

Burning garbage doesn't solve anything. It doesn't actually get destroyed. Instead, it takes another form: THE AIR WE BREATHE.

The real answer is to improve our recycling programs.

BURNING GARBAGE DESTROYS IT! Through burning, matter is converted to energy- heat energy. This heat can be used to produce electricty and to heat buildings -- very screwball European.

pro-life, pro-gun

I guess it all evens out in the end.

"BURNING GARBAGE DESTROYS IT! "


Well, no...actually it doesn't. It just breaks it down faster into it's componants...and spews the dioxins directly into the environment, rather than hopefully keeping it contained in a landfill site. The remaining ash still needs to go to a landfill site....and the ash is also toxic.

There is no way to get rid of garbage, except not produce it in the first place.

And it's not like the city has been "sweeping it under the rug" at all....that Adams Mine solution in Kirkland Lake actually produced fist fights...and that idea was nixed.

Relying on the Michigan solution is a dumb idea though....it costs $53 per ton to send garbage there (as opposed to the $18 per ton before the Kelle Valley shut in 2002 ). Yard waste, biomedical waste and radioactive waste had already been banned, and in March, signed a package of waste-management bills that would ban pop bottles, pop cans and used tires from imported trash. Under the legislation, Ms. Granholm will have short-term emergency powers to close the border to incoming garbage if the state believes there is a threat to health, safety or the environment. The city would have just 48 hours before reaching the overflow point at its seven garbage transfer stations, where city trucks dump their loads to be transferred to Michigan-bound transports.

The city says it would like to have a homegrown solution in place by 2010. It has all but ruled out sending its trash to an Ontario landfill or building a new incinerator.

Instead, it is pushing recycling, composting and other "green solutions." Along with the blue box for bottles and cans and the grey box for newspapers and cardboard, selected city residents will get a green bin for kitchen scraps and other "wet" garbage.

The goal is to divert 60 per cent of Toronto's garbage away from landfills by 2006, up from 32 per cent now. No other big North American municipality has reached 60-per-cent diversion. Chicago, a similar-sized city, is hoping to divert 25 per cent.

But we will still have to get rid of that 40% left over.







"I used to live not far from the landfill near Carleton, MI. IT STINKS LIKE NASTY OUT THERE! If you are within one mile of that landfill, and the wind is blowing in your direction, you are going to smell it. "


So...does the Canadian garbage smell worse than the American garbage???







KGB

The GreenBin program costs 3.5 times per tonne more than shipping to Michigan. I hate it, hate it with a passion. The best solution for Toronto would've been the Kirkland Lake.

The "green" waste should be encouraged to not be a "handled" waste product at all. Green waste should be handled at the site. The city had a home composting program before...don't know what's going on with that. Condos and apartment buildings could process ALL their biodegradable waste right on site...it's doesn't require a lot of costs, and the compost can be used on their own landscaping.

It gets expensive when city owned trucks have to run around picking it up and transporting it places...just dumb.

For individuals and buildings that have extra, or can't use compost for some reason, they could have drop-off sites located at city-gardening centres. In fact, the city should have more community vegetable gardens...they seem to be very popular....we have plenty of land for it.






KGB

GO KERRY !!!

It's about time Toronto and Ontario politicians started dealing with issues instead of sweeping them under the carpet, or in this case, down the 401. Better start planning to get rid of it here instead of waiting until the sky falls, cause it's going to happen sooner than later and as usual our politicos will be caught sleeping.


How is it 'sweeping it under the carpet' when pretty much every city on the planet produces landfill waste and we have an agreement which pays this landfill in Michigan to accept our garbage, which they do willingly?

Under the legislation, Ms. Granholm will have short-term emergency powers to close the border to incoming garbage if the state believes there is a threat to health, safety or the environment. The city would have just 48 hours before reaching the overflow point at its seven garbage transfer stations, where city trucks dump their loads to be transferred to Michigan-bound transports.

And . . . what is the response from our civic leaders? Why, they stand on the sidelines yelling "they can't do that" citing NAFTA and vowing to fight it out in the courts. So, when the governor stops the trash our leaders will cite NAFTA and the court hearings will start. There may be some kind of resolution by 2010 if we're lucky. Can somebody tell me where it's all going to go in the meantime? Do the city and province even have a contingency plan?

Um - no, BURNING - if the laws of physics have not yet been repealed, most certainly does destroy matter. It's a fact. The next time you are by a fire, feel the heat and see the light ! ( ;) ) The fire needs fuel- matter. The heat and the light stem form the conversion of the matter into energy.

Now, I'll grant you this--- the temperatures requited to burn certain matter is freaking loopy high. There will be ash left over- no doubt about it. There will be some matter left at the end of the day. One way of dealing with this is to supper heat it - add more energy to it--say, like from a windmill! Use the windmill to produce electricity, and use that electricity to burn the ash -- to burn the matter a second time. The goal is not to produce energy, but to destroy matter. There will still be ash, however.

Freaking screwball European, eh? Almost as nuts and as objectionable making better use of already paid for infrastructure, like those idiot Asians do, eh?

Using some of the heat produced to heat downtown buildings --now, that's freaking totally nuts.

Well, this Havard-educated Canadian Jennifer Granholm needs to go since she destroyed Michigan to its core. I believe that Michigan will elected a conservative in 2006 once liberalism in Michigan slowly dissolve.

You shouldn't talk about her education when you just proved yours to be inferior...

How is it 'sweeping it under the carpet' when pretty much every city on the planet produces landfill waste and we have an agreement which pays this landfill in Michigan to accept our garbage, which they do willingly?

It is sweeping it under the carpet cause, unlike most cities on the planet, the people we elect have refused to deal with the problem until it was too late and then had to grasp at a very expensive, and as it's turning out, very short-sighted option.

It is sweeping it under the carpet cause, unlike most cities on the planet, the people we elect have refused to deal with the problem until it was too late and then had to grasp at a very expensive, and as it's turning out, very short-sighted option.


Ah ok. You're talking about the fact that they're choosing a more expensive option rather than the fact we're 'forcing' garbage on the people of Michigan.

keep sending it to michigan until something ACTUALLY changes...
I'm sure the first thing Kerry will have to worry about, if his slim chance of getting elected is fulfilled, is canadian garbage going to a place that wants it. Hell they will probably fight to keep it coming.

I hope we have the wisdom to keep our own garbage, burn it, and heat downtown offices and condos with the heat! Ha--- but that's just too freaking European.. Toss it in the dust bin, along with the screwball European idea of using already paid for rights- of - way for transit, and ship it off to Michigan...
These European ideas are - well - of a different mentality than what Torontonians are all about.

I say we send all the garbage to are be's place, so he can make it all disappear in his magic windmill powered super matter destroying machine.



LOL!!






KGB

Hey...I have an even better take on are be's plan....let's take all those useless nukes we have all over the planet...and just put them under giant piles of garbage...and explode them, thereby vapourizing the garbage in an instant!!!!!






KGB

You're talking about the fact that they're choosing a more expensive option rather than the fact we're 'forcing' garbage on the people of Michigan.

No, I said it was swept under the carpet cause our politicians were too afraid to take a position of leadership and deal with the issue and instead opted to try and make everybody here (in Toronto) happy. Choosing a more expensive option as well as "forcing" our trash on Michigan were just the results of this indecision and lack of backbone. All I'm saying is look where this got us.

Good, that'll mean fewer trucks heading through Windsor and Sarnia.

Thats what I was thinking, Blitz. But now there will be more abandoned trucks sitting along the road in detroit.

"I said it was swept under the carpet cause our politicians were too afraid to take a position of leadership and deal with the issue "


Ts1...instead of making up rants like you (which are bullshit by the way), why not actually eduacate yourself on the process. The issue was never swept under the carpet at all. There was a very long and protracted battle over the issue. The Adams Mine fell through...the incinerator option was considered not an option (for good reason).

There is no solution other than to illiminate the need to either burn garbage, or stick it into the ground. And that's excactly what the city is doing...implimenting the most ambitious recycling program ever attempted on the continent.

I know we like to just complain about politicians...and there is plenty to complain about...no need to dream up scenarios that don't exist....just shows your ignorance.






KGB

Piss off KGB. You're the king of bullshit rants around here.

I know all about this issue. What it was mainly about was no politician wanting to put it in their own backyard and tell the people what needed to be said - you create a mess, you'll have to deal with it.

No, I said it was swept under the carpet cause our politicians were too afraid to take a position of leadership and deal with the issue and instead opted to try and make everybody here (in Toronto) happy. Choosing a more expensive option as well as "forcing" our trash on Michigan were just the results of this indecision and lack of backbone. All I'm saying is look where this got us.

But nobody is forcing garbage on anyone! It's a business transaction.

But now there will be more abandoned trucks sitting along the road in detroit.

Uh huh...

You shouldn't talk about her education when you just proved yours to be inferior...
Oh, hush up. Gdoggy. Even the guy you always hated went to Yale University as well as Havard University. And that guy you always hated is George W. Bush.

"Piss off KGB. You're the king of bullshit rants around here. I know all about this issue. "


Yea...I can tell. ha ha ha Your a real intelligent feller.






KGB

Oh, hush up. Gdoggy. Even the guy you always hated went to Yale University as well as Havard University. And that guy you always hated is George W. Bush.

I'm sure he got in on his own merits...
:hahaha:

All that proves is how money can get anyone into Yale or Harvard.
I wonder if he ever attended a class ?
certainly doesn't seem like it, he's always going to be a whopping moron.
I'll give him some credit tho, next to you, he actually makes a little bit of sense.
:)

:wallbash:

As both Kerry and Bush went to Yale, I don't get the Ivy-bashing comments. Hell, they even attended the same f*cked up social club--where members have to lie in a coffin and masturbate while talking about their sex lives to be accepted.

"Even the guy you always hated went to Yale University as well as Havard University. And that guy you always hated is George W. Bush."


Yea, but what a waste of money...the couldn't pass the Bar.

And in a funny twist of irony, Bush is for banning the "Legacy" program, which gets people into college based on their relations to former alumni, and making people get accepted on their own merits....which is the same program that got HIM into Yale in the first place....god knows his SAT scores would never get hime in.






KGB

John Kerry=Cheap way to get votes

Just shows how dispirit for votes John Kerry is.

If it's an issue in that district/state/wherever, why not address it?

Bush wants to ban the Legacy system? That might be one of the three things he's for that I'd agree with. (the other two are pretzels and beer, in case you were wondering).

I guess the americans should take our garbage. after all we also take american garbage:
NBC,ABC, TBS, FOX and so on.

Sep. 9, 2004. 01:00 AM
Editorial: Toronto's trash raises big stink


Toronto's policy of trucking its garbage down Highway 401 and across the Detroit River to Michigan is generating new hostility from Americans who are not happy to receive it. The latest voice raised in protest is that of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Whether or not he occupies the White House, opposition to our garbage is growing in the highest political circles in the United States.

In light of that trend, it is now abundantly clear Toronto must quickly find ways to reduce the river of garbage it sends to the United States.

Kerry may have just been seeking votes when he vowed to "end Canadian trash dumping in Michigan." With more than a million tonnes of our trash trucked there last year, it's a popular position for a candidate to take.

It is unclear what Kerry could do to block that flow. Private landfill owners in Michigan, who profit from our business, could sue for loss of revenue. And they could cite international accords, especially NAFTA, to keep trucks brimming with our trash rumbling into the country. Kerry has indicated he would use a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency treaty to hamper cross-border delivery of waste shipments.

What Kerry ignores, though, is that Ontario is the dumping ground for much American toxic waste, which is shipped to a Sarnia disposal site.

What is certain is U.S. residents are increasingly alarmed over having their nation swallow our waste. Their politicians are listening and acting.

Michigan state officials have passed new restrictions on waste and hazardous stuff coming from Canada. Starting next month, the state won't accept tires, deposit beverage containers, used oil, medical waste and other hazardous material. That should not affect Toronto, since such waste isn't supposed to be aboard the roughly 120 tractor-trailers moving this city's garbage over the border every day.

But it may be just the first of many new challenges. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has pledged to stem the trash flowing into her state.

Given her hostility, and opposition that could stretch to the White House, officials in Toronto and at Queen's Park must begin to develop alternatives. More recycling would help. Toronto has made significant progress on this front, and is set to do even better as the Green Bin program, collecting organic waste, spreads to much of the city this fall.

Provincial officials should strive to create more landfill space within Ontario. And Toronto should consider incineration. Advances in anti-pollution technology have made this a much cleaner way of processing trash than it was decades ago. Garbage is cleanly burned, on a large scale, in Japan and much of Europe, and incinerators can even generate electricity. (THOSE SCREWBALL EUROPEANS!!!)

Ontario, and especially its largest city, have a serious garbage disposal problem. Michigan's landfill operators may soon be barred from taking our trash. If that happens, we will face a full-blown crisis. That is why it is critical to get alternatives in place now, before the border is plugged.

› Buy the Saturday Star and get Sunday to Friday FREE!
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.

"Garbage is cleanly burned, on a large scale, in Japan and much of Europe, and incinerators can even generate electricity. "


This is just plain ole bullshit....you believe that simply because someone wrote that?

I could post study after study regarding the major environmental and health problems accountable to incineration in Europe. And Japan???? Their incineration problems are a complete disaster.

People should stop believing burning garbage makes it magically disappear. There is no magic bullet for disposing of garbage, and burning it is probably the single worse way to do it.






KGB

"Garbage is cleanly burned, on a large scale, in Japan and much of Europe, and incinerators can even generate electricity. "


This is just plain ole bullshit....you believe that simply because someone wrote that?

I could post study after study regarding the major environmental and health problems accountable to incineration in Europe. And Japan???? Their incineration problems are a complete disaster.

People should stop believing burning garbage makes it magically disappear. There is no magic bullet for disposing of garbage, and burning it is probably the single worse way to do it.






KGB

While there is no magic bullet, please DO post the studies. Particularily including countries which use the new incinerators.

Very good point, salvius!

KGB, When were the laws of physics repealed?
There are only three things in the entire universe: matter, the in between stage of radiation, and energy.
By burning garbage, we convert it to energy, and is ceases to be matter- thems be the laws of physics!
Ah! To burn the garbage anc use the heat to heat downtown buildings! Using what amounts to FREE FUEL!!! Freaking crazy screwball European as it gets!

As for disagreeing with the Star, as a general rule of thumb, the Star ought to be dismissed as the public relations firm of the federal Liberal party- so, I agree, the Star is a very questionable source of news and opinion. Occasionally ,however, they get it right- as they did earlier this week when they suddenly turned on unions in the education sector (Liberals in power? Time to start attacking unions - interesting switch, eh? The Star is a very different paper when it is b backing right- wing Liberal government decisions vis. when it is backing left wing Liberals during an election. .)

"By burning garbage, we convert it to energy, and is ceases to be matter- thems be the laws of physics! "


Go directly to 1001 Queen W....do not pass GO...do not collect $200.






KGB

"By burning garbage, we convert it to energy, and is ceases to be matter- thems be the laws of physics! "

Go directly to 1001 Queen W....do not pass GO...do not collect $200.

KGB


Ah!
KGB, try to be more European!
When it comes to garbage, just think, "Burn, baby Burn! Disco inferno!"

Don't be afraid of the men in the white coats are be...they are your friends...they are going to help you.






KGB

You've dealt with them, no doubt. ;)

Kerry's trash talk

The great thing about having Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry trash talking Toronto for shipping its garbage to Michigan is how embarrassing it is for this city's fernheads, environmentalists and lefties.

Particularly on city council.

Because in attacking Kerry's campaign pledge to immediately halt the 120 garbage trucks that Toronto sends to Michigan every day if he becomes president, they're tacitly endorsing George Bush, whom Kerry blames for allowing it to happen.

It's doubly embarrassing for lefties because while they're correct in arguing that Kerry's promise has little chance of ever being implemented, they also know in their gut that Kerry is right. That it is wrong for Toronto, having failed to come up with any viable policy to dispose of its own garbage, to keep shipping the stuff to Michigan.

In the real world, even if Kerry wins the election, which now seems doubtful, he'd likely run afoul of the Canada-U.S. free trade pact and U.S. laws which guard against impeding interstate trade. Plus, he'd have to close the entire U.S. border to Toronto's trash -- not just Michigan -- or private haulers would simply pick another state with dumps willing to take it.

Then again, Kerry's target wasn't Toronto council but Bush for, as he put it, allowing "Michigan (to) become Canada's landfill." Michigan is a key battleground state where Kerry and Bush are running neck and neck.

Many Michigan residents are, understandably, furious about having to take Toronto's trash.

Kerry wants their votes, which is why he raised the issue Tuesday, supported by the state's Democrats.

U.S. politics aside, the whole controversy reminds us yet again of what an international embarrassment Toronto's "solution" to its garbage woes is.

Mayor David Miller and this left-leaning council won't consider shipping our trash up to the abandoned Adams Mine in Kirkland Lake -- nor safe, modern, incineration.

So what's their oh-so environmentally correct solution? It's to keep shipping the stuff out of sight and out of mind to Michigan -- while working on pie-in-the-sky plans to divert 100% of our trash, some day. (It's not just the left that is wonky on this issue. Many of council's normally sensible voices have bought into this malarkey as well.)

Anyway, even if Toronto council wasn't his intended target, good on Kerry for shining an international spotlight on this fiasco. Actually, it's one of the few things he's said to date that we agree with.

And another thing ...

The Sun's Joe Warmington yesterday answered the question that ever hockey fan has been asking since the World Cup of Hockey series started on CBC. That is, where the hell is Grapes? Thanks to Warmington, at least, you now know Don Cherry's views on the series. Tax free, we might add.

Letters to the editor should be sent to: editor@tor.sunpub.com
...
Sun Media: Calgary Sun / Ottawa Sun / Edmonton Sun / London Free Press / Winnipeg Sun


CANOE home | We welcome your feedback.
Copyright © 2004, CANOE, a division of Netgraphe Inc.All rights reserved.

"You've dealt with them, no doubt"

No...Valantino told me...he lives there...remember?




Now, re...that article.....



"fernheads, environmentalists and lefties."

Yea...imagine that...those horrible people who want to make a better, safer, cleaner planet?????






"That it is wrong for Toronto, having failed to come up with any viable policy to dispose of its own garbage, to keep shipping the stuff to Michigan."


Totally incorrect....Toronto is only shipping it's garbage to Michigan temporarily, because our landfill is full, building a new one is out of the question, and Kirkland Lake would sooner lie under the trucks than allow us to put it in Adams Mine.

There is only one "viable" way to dispose of waste...and that's not to do it. And this is the policy that Toronto has decided upon. So technically, you could say Toronto has indeed decided on the only "viable" policy there is.






"Mayor David Miller and this left-leaning council won't consider shipping our trash up to the abandoned Adams Mine in Kirkland Lake "

Perhaps 14 years of fighting over it, and Queen's Park legislating the whole idea into oblivion is why that isn't happening?




"nor safe, modern, incineration"

Because it doesn't exist (are be's imaginary laws of physics notwithstanding of course LOL )







"So what's their oh-so environmentally correct solution? It's to keep shipping the stuff out of sight and out of mind to Michigan -- while working on pie-in-the-sky plans to divert 100% of our trash, some day. (It's not just the left that is wonky on this issue. Many of council's normally sensible voices have bought into this malarkey as well.)"


Oh...this guy must be a expert on the issue...using words like "malarkey" and all. LOL!!

It's not "malarkey"....nor is it "wonky" or "pie-in-the-sky"....it's the only solution that makes sense. What kind of retard would poo poo this idea?

I'll tell you who......conservative/big biz types like who the people who write these stupid articles work for, who knows damn well that part of the plan involves a "polluter pays" system.....and that ain't good for big biz folks. They are much happier polluting our planet with the impunity they have been.








KGB

Those who oppose incinerators can be dismissed as Kyoto supporters-- that is to say, they have a hate-on for the factory workers!

What's that word somebody mentioned......Malarkey???

he he






KGB

FROM THE STAR:
Provincial officials should strive to create more landfill space within Ontario. And Toronto should consider incineration. Advances in anti-pollution technology have made this a much cleaner way of processing trash than it was decades ago. Garbage is cleanly burned, on a large scale, in Japan and much of Europe, and incinerators can even generate electricity. (THOSE SCREWBALL EUROPEANS!!!)


....
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.

You can post as many simple paragraphs "saying" incineration is "clean" as you want....but its just the same bullshit sentence repeated.






KGB

You can deny the laws of physics all you want, but the fact remains: burning grabage converts the grabage from matter into enrgy.

Getting rid of all garbage is indeed pie-in-the-sky. If this is what the alternative is, we will wait for it a long, long time.

Said Are Be: "Um - no, BURNING - if the laws of physics have not yet been repealed, most certainly does destroy matter. It's a fact. The next time you are by a fire, feel the heat and see the light ! ( ) The fire needs fuel- matter. The heat and the light stem form the conversion of the matter into energy."

Hey Are Be, maybe this happens in your universe, but not in this one. You may note some residue in burning. It's called ash. This stuff is matter. There is also stuff that goes up in the air. It's called gas. It is also matter! Burning is a chemical action that changes the state of matter and releases some heat in the process. If this heat is captured it can be used, for example, to do work like drive a turbine, and this can be used to generate electricity. To convert matter directly to energy, check out Albert Einstein's energy mass equivalency Energy = mass x the speed of light squared.

GOOD POINT!
See, you agree with me, bizorky! You, Einstein and me - we're all in the same universe!
E= energy
m= mass (matter)
ONE CAN BURN MATTER AND GET ENERGY!
Sure- there will be some ash. There will be some things that don't burn until they reach freaky high temperatures.
And the combustion will not be 100% efficient- so, gee, no kidding, there will be some ash.
Still, Take note of the heat from combustion ---- that's energy! Where did it come from? FROM THE BURNING MATTER, take, for example, matter such as garbage burning in an incinerator!
FEEL THE HEAT!
SEE THE LIGHT!
BURN THE GARBAGE!
BURN BABY BURN- DISCO INFERNO!!!

You can deny the laws of physics all you want, but the fact remains: burning grabage converts the grabage from matter into enrgy.

Not only does it become energy, it also becomes smaller bits of matter. Smaller bits of mattar that get into lungs and hurt people. If SimCity4 has taught me anything, it's that burning garbage creates ALOT of pollution. As long as they don't send garbage up here.

And Woor- I think Michigan has been pro-gun long anough. And Pro-life/Pro-gun.. they cancel eachother out. Besides killing, what do we use guns for?

GOOD POINT!
See, you agree with me, bizorky! You, Einstein and me - we're all in the same universe!
E= energy
m= mass (matter)
ONE CAN BURN MATTER AND GET ENERGY!
Sure- there will be some ash. There will be some things that don't burn until they reach freaky high temperatures.
And the combustion will not be 100% efficient- so, gee, no kidding, there will be some ash.
Still, Take note of the heat from combustion ---- that's energy! Where did it come from? FROM THE BURNING MATTER, take, for example, matter such as garbage burning in an incinerator!
FEEL THE HEAT!
SEE THE LIGHT!
BURN THE GARBAGE!
BURN BABY BURN- DISCO INFERNO!!!


AreBe, you're insane.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/avatars/Bert.gif

Your avatar also suits you perfectly :D

Yeah, I heard that's what he looks like. Tall, with a tuft of hair on top.

It is true that the smoke stacks in modern incinerators are clean (except in Japan, where they seem to be able to screw up most things in half of their implementations).

The big problems are:

1) Cost -- we're talking around $76 per ton to burn the trash in a natural gas incinerator, plus $25 per ton to dispose of the ash as compared to $50? per ton to drive it south. Ash is approx. 20% of the weight of the initial garbage.

2) What goes up the stack is clear, but high in greenhouse gases -- you've essentially got a natural gas based burner.

You can argue that the trucks and natural breakdown of the garbage creates a similar amount of CO2 + methane. I don't have any numbers demonstrating that one is better than the other.

Either way, we know that in the long run that large greenhouse gas emissions are not fiscally friendly; disaster recovery handouts are up.

3) The scrubbing compounds (ammonia sprays, activated charcoal filters, etc.) tend to end up with high concentrations of heavy metals and other nasty items and need to be disposed as toxic waste. In theory, you might be able to reclaim some of those metals but I don't believe it has been accomplished in a cost effective manner as the scrubbing materials are chosen because they absorb those pollutants effectively.

4) Only inefficient incinerators can be used to generate electricity -- yeah, you read that right. First off, what is an incinerator for? It's meant, primarily, to remove the mass of water from the garbage making it easier (lighter, less space, etc) to dispose of in landfill -- ash. The side effects, in regards to the compounds produced, are less harmful at high temperatures than low temperatures.

So... An incinerator that also generates electricity or heat for nearby buildings is a bit like connecting a miniature turbine to the exhaust of your dryer. The more efficient the dryer, the less heat goes out of the exhaust.

Wet garbage takes a heck of alot of energy to dry out to the point where it will burn -- there certainly isn't a surplus using that method. If you could figure out a way to use it in an isolated fusion reaction, then you might have something.


Those who oppose incinerators can be dismissed as Kyoto supporters-- that is to say, they have a hate-on for the factory workers!

Do tell me how and why burning garbage, then disposing the ash into landfill is better than disposing garbage to landfill in it's original form?

Also, tell me how factory workers have any relevence in this conversation? The primary cost to our green bin program is manpower -- and we already know it'll cost several times what landfill or incineration would cost. Since you're into hyperbole, I propose that those who are pro-incineration are anti-employment!

I have a feeling are be is not "quite" as stupid as he makes out...I think he's just jerking us around when he thinks you convert the watse "matter" into heat. Nobody is that stupid.

I think he may just being facitious about the entire matter.


Just in case you really are that stupid....if you put 1000 lbs of garbage into an incinerator and burn it...you still have 1000 lbs of garbage. Only now, only about 250-400 lbs of it are sitting in the incinerator as ash....the other 600-750 lbs of it still exists....it has been blown into the atmosphere as gas and very fine particles.

Another lovely side effect of incineration, is that it takes a fairly benign solid object and changes it's composition into deadly poisons, which are now in the air (they don't ever go away).

All you've done by burning the garbage, is made it an even bigger environmantal hazard. Every bit of the garbage is still around.






KGB

Are you certain? While I agree that a great deal of what is burned is still there in some way, I thought that matter could be broken down to a degree into energy which then dissipates. Does 50 pounds of firewood really equal fifty actual pounds of smoke and ash?

On the other hand not even a star uses all of its matter during its life. The galaxy is full of burnt-out lumps of highly dense matter that are what is left after stars have gone out.

Matter can only change form...when it does, it is accompanied by energy also changing form...in this case, the energy given off by burning the garbage is heat. The garbage matter did not change into energy...it simply changed form and so did the energy it contained. The amount of matter stays the same.

The "Law of Conservation of Matter" is fairly strict. LOL!!






KGB

To be totally accurate, matter can sometimes be changed into energy, and visa versa....but now we are talking nuclear fission and fusion...hardly the process of garbage incinerators.






KGB

The "Law of Conservation of Matter" is fairly strict. LOL!!






KGB

Good point. That pretty much ends this incineration debate unless AreBe wants to take on the Laws of Physics.

Does 50 pounds of firewood really equal fifty actual pounds of smoke and ash?

Had a response, but KGB wrote nearly the same thing first. Here is a link with most of the details.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae648.cfm

And, if you really want to get accurate -- wood doesn't even burn under normal curcumstances, it rapidly oxidizes under heat. Before wood can heat up to it's flashpoint, the outer surface will oxidize (rusting iron, but much faster) producing a gas -- this gas however is quite flammable and creates enough heat to maintain the rapid oxidization process.

If you watch closely, you'll see that the flame doesn't actually touch the wood but hovers above it a little.

/spent too much time listening to firemen

Burning garbage contains the same mentality as people had when they figured they could just throw raw garbage into the ocean, and somehow the vastness of the ocean would somehow make it disappear, or become harmless.

And shame on the people who dupe people into thinking generating electricity from incinerators is somehow making them "green", or it is somehow "free" electricity. What a pile of bullshit. You are WASTING energy by burning garbage as fuel for electricity....recycling the materials typically burned up in an incinerator saves three to five times the energy that would be generated by burning them up....and create a hell of a lot more jobs.

And if we burned 100% of the world's garbage and produced electricity from the process, it would account for about 1% of the wordld's energy needs. It would also poisen the planet pretty quickly. LOL!!

And do you have any idea what one of these "waste-to-energy" incinerators cost to build and maintain?







KGB

Burning garbage contains the same mentality as people had when they figured they could just throw raw garbage into the ocean, and somehow the vastness of the ocean would somehow make it disappear, or become harmless.

So.. I see you've been to Victoria and seen their sewer system.

Yea...doesn't it boggle the mind, that in this day and age...in Canada...and in BC, where the are always extolling the virtues of their "beautifull, pristine" landscape....yet they throw billions of untreated, raw sewage right into the ocean.

Victoria discharges about 21 billion gallons of raw sewage a year. Vancouver's innadequate system has primary treatment, but 38 billion gallons per year miss the treatment plants altogether and are spilled over through combined sewer overflows.

I find it strange that the BC government would let it's capital city not have any treatment for it's sewage.






KGB

Actually, the sewage is pre-treated. Its just not fully treated. But I wouldnt say its "untreated" because it is. There is a processing plant for Victoria's sewage at Clover Point.

But yeah, the sewage there is messed up. Victoria is such a backwardds town taht cant get anything done because all the old people want the town to remain "oldfashioned".

According to an article I just read right now, Montreal, Halifax and St.Johns has the same problem with their sewage pollution.

"Actually, the sewage is pre-treated. Its just not fully treated. But I wouldnt say its "untreated" because it is. There is a processing plant for Victoria's sewage at Clover Point."


Well, perhaps my info is incorrect then....the Georgia Strait Allience had the following to say regarding the topic, and it says Victoria ha "NO" seage treatment.....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a major portion of the Capital Regional District (including the municipalities of Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay and Esquimalt), there is NO sewage treatment. That means all of the homes, businesses and industries in these municipalities are discharging raw sewage directly into Juan de Fuca Strait.

In the Greater Vancouver Regional District, two sewage treatment plants have secondary treatment, however the two largest plants still only have primary treatment.

Nanaimo and a few smaller communities also only have primary treatment

In the Greater Vancouver Regional District, another serious problem is the combined sewage overflows. In this antiquated system of piping (dating from the early 1900s), storm runoff and sewage share the same pipes. When it’s dry, all the contents of these pipes go to the treatment plants. However, when it rains hard (as it does in Vancouver frequently), this smelly and toxic brew discharges from 42 combined sewer outfalls. This causes pollution of local beaches and well as harming the local marine life.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------







KGB

Question

If you burn a piece of wood in a confined space would the weight of that space change?

Asked by: Bill Wiebe

Answer

This question probes a well known characteristic of the universe - the conservation of matter. Without invoking nuclear physical processes such as fusion or fission, no process will cause matter to be created or destroyed. Thus a chemical reaction such as burning a piece of wood will rearrange the atoms, but not change any of them. Therefore the total mass must remain exactly the same.

For example, much of the mass of the average piece of wood is made of polymerized sugars such as cellulose. We can model these chemicals' burning behavior fairly well with glucose, a 6 carbon sugar. When glucose is burned (combined with oxygen) the chemical equation is:

C6H12O6 + 6 O2 -----> 6 CO2 + 6 H2O

glucose + oxygen yields carbon dioxide + water

Add up the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms on the two sides of the equation and you will see that the numbers are the same. The atoms simply "switch partners" in a form of atomic square dance, but none leave the dance floor.

But what about those processes we agreed to ignore? As the wood burns, chemical potential energy becomes kinetic energy like heat which can presumably radiate out of the fixed area of space you defined in your question. Since Einstein we have known that energy and matter are two forms of the same thing, as steam and ice are two forms of water. So if energy is lost from the system a tiny amount of mass would indeed be escaping. (The amount is tiny as evident from the famous equation E = mc2 where E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light in a vacuum, 3 x 108 m/s) Thus we now usually call this law the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

Answered by: Rob Landolfi, Science Teacher

AH! I see!
I can never get more than I put in! Aside from the wacky world of nuclear physics, the total of mater and energy coming in is equal to the matter and energy leaving any given incinerator! MATTER GOES IN IN THE FORM OF GARBAGE, and GETS BURNT - no new matter or energy is added, so, what happens is, at the end of the combustion, the totality of all the matter and energy produced is about the same as the amount of matter and energy that was inputed in the first place! IT JUST CHANGED FORM! ! All that happened was that the matter was converted to energy, in accordance with the above noted "law the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy."
TAKE SPECIAL NOTE -- this is not the law of conservation of matter- as many of you believe. You set fire to matter, and -by golly! - you will have less matter after than before combustion! But, no - you will not have any more matter or energy than what you inputted.

Same works the other way too! The "law the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy" is not the law of conserving energy either! Matter has been created in massive particle accelerators -- where massive amounts of energy are added to matter, accelerating the freaking smithereens out of it, and then - wham- man made elements are created! These are the elements that have the names of universities attached to them, along the lines of Oxfordum, UCLAdium, or professors, Ruthafordium, etc. Again, the end product does not exceed the amount of energy or matter inputted into the system.


And, if you really want to get accurate -- wood doesn't even burn under normal circumstances, it rapidly oxidizes under heat. Before wood can heat up to it's flash point, the outer surface will oxidize (rusting iron, but much faster) producing a gas -- this gas however is quite flammable and creates enough heat to maintain the rapid oxidization process.
VERY GOOD POINT!
As things burn, they oxidize- the molecules break down! Chemical reactions occur! (Not nuclear ones-- we're splitting molecules, not elements)!
MATTER INTO ENERGY! BUT NEVER MORE ENERGY THAN WAS IMPUTED IN THE FIRST PLACE: "l the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy"!

"The atoms simply "switch partners" in a form of atomic square dance, but none leave the dance floor." OK- True - but, the bonds between the atoms ARE SPLIT - and energy is released!
Try this--- find someone who disagrees that burning matter produces heat, douse them with gasoline, and and ask them if they mind if you set them abalze.

FEEL THE HEAT!
SEE THE LIGHT!
BURN THE GARBAGE!
BURN, BABY, BURN! - DISCO INFERNO!

All that happened was that the matter was converted to energy, in accordance with the above noted "law the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy."

Sometimes you're just too funny. Anyway, I'm curious as to whether you're actually a member of the conservative party or whether you've made all of this up to be "annoying"?

If you ever do run, be sure to demonstrate a much higher level of comprehension in order to win over centrists, otherwise you're political career may not be very long. First impression in politics mean everything.

Well, truth be told, I don't think burning matter produces energy. The warm light and and heat emanating from the Christmas hearth -as you know, RBT- is just an illusion.
FEEL THE HEAT!
SEE THE LIGHT!
BURN THE GARBAGE!
BURN, BABY, BURN! - DISCO INFERNO!
(You've got to admit - that's a funny line!)

To be totally accurate, matter can sometimes be changed into energy, and visa versa....but now we are talking nuclear fission and fusion...hardly the process of garbage incinerators.

(Sigh) Actually, no. You are just releasing energy, not converting matter into energy. The matter/energy equivalency is pretty srtict and as shown by Einstein. Converting matter to energy would require a tremendous amount of energy. What we all are discussing here is getting a mechanical system to do work in order to drive a dynamo and generate electric current.

I think there are a small number of possible incineration scenarios and technologies that are worth looking at. And before I get flamed, I do not mean the wholesale burning of garbage. There are couple of very good technologies in Sweden, but the choices of waste for burning are restricted. If we were to adopt this type of incineration, it would still require recycling and waste management in order to select what gets re-used and what gets burned.

"(Sigh) Actually, no. You are just releasing energy, not converting matter into energy. "


Look dude...before this becomes a physics class....the matter I am talking about is a few protons and electrons here. Incredibly small amounts of it. So before you start lecturing, decide if you really want to get into it first

The point being, the incineration of garbage does not involve any processes which destroys a single molecule of matter, unless we want to subject it to 15 million degrees celcius.

It does not change form into "energy" or "heat" at all are be...it changes form as in solid, gas, liquid, plasma.



There is no "clean" method to incinerate waste. The more technically advanced the method gets, the more expensive it gets....and we still have waste that still needs to be disposed of that is more toxic than when we started.

We have to decide whether our priority is to find very expensive and dangerous methods to "compact" the garbage we have to dispose of....or simply compact the "amount" of garbage we have to dispose of.






"BURN, BABY, BURN! - DISCO INFERNO!
(You've got to admit - that's a funny line!)"


You're the only one who thinks you are funny.

Maybe we should just incinerate are be instead?






KGB

I can assume from the use of "dude" you may have interpreted my sigh as a negative remark concerning your post. Rest assured, it wasn't. I had no interest in being pedantic, nor do I want to lecture on physics. I generally agree that wholesale incineration will only generate plenty of toxic ash and undesirable air discharge which would require expensive scrubber technology. Nevertheless, there are some incineration methods that could burn some garbage waste (and I really stress the word "some").
Presently, there are very few "clean" methods of generating electricity. Oil, natural gas and nuclear are obvious polluters. In some cases hydro dams cause flooding that leads to environmental damage, and can cause high levels of methane emission, a significant greenhouse gas. The manufacturing of solar panels is easily as polluting as the manufacturing of computers chips (at least the specific technology I know of). Wind power is probably the least damaging, but is not viable when solving all of Ontario's energy needs.
In the end, we have to accept that at our present level of technology we are going to get some pollution in the process of generating electricity. We should be examining which type is the least dangerous and the most useful in the long run. We (society) should be intensive in research into improving existing forms of generation, and looking at improving renewable types.

When you burn the garbage, all of the matter becomes smaller particles. These samaller particles, also known as, "pollution", are what contain the energy. The matter that once was the garbage, is now tiny particles, ready to kill people with it's toxins. It doesn't just completely dissappear, it becomes pollution. Who knew?

bizorky...how did this turn into being about generating electricity?

Burning waste is not an option for meeting any kind of electricity needs...we sure generate a lot of garbage, but even if we burnt it all in incinerators which generated electricity, it would just be a spit in the ocean. And if saving energy is the concern, then I have already pointed out you can save 4 times the energy by recycling the same garbage you want to burn.






"It doesn't just completely dissappear, it becomes pollution. Who knew?


We all did....we just didn't care. Apparently we still don't.






KGB

AreBe.. please stop using boldened and underlines text in your posts. your posts are no more important than anyone else's. I am going to start editing your posts soon.

What are we going to do as places like China come screaming into the consumer age?

When most of the country were just poor peasants, they generated very little waste...they lived mostly off the land fairly simply. What's going to happen when all 1.2 billion of them are generating the kind of waste the west has been doing. Just as we are attempting to impliment the 3 "R's", can we trust places like China and India to adopt a green lifestyle?

I doubt it...they are gonna want their over-packaged, over-processed crap as badly, if not more badly then we did. Look at Japan...the world's biggest incinerators of garbage...and the world's biggest source if dioxins. At least China has space to contain their waste without resorting to burning it.






KGB

We have to think about the goals here - and what they are:
1, dealing with garbage
2, dealing with pollution
3, dealing with electricity
4, dealing with heating downtown buildings:


The garbage must be dealt with, and - quite frankly- we are not going to recycle 100% of it. Not going to happen.

Let's look at those screwball Europeans, and see if we can turn this garbage 'problem' into an user for other questions. HEY! THOSE SCREWBALL EUROPEANS ARE ON TO SOMETHING!!! We can burn garbage to create electricity - helping solve the problems surrounding the lack of supply electricity!

But, of course, as others have pointed out, burning garbage produces pollution. One method to reduce pollution would be to use the electricity from the burning process to super heat the garbage -- to make the burn more complete, and to have less ash. If the goal of incineration is to get rid of the garbage, and not to produce electricity for the electrical grid, then there are befits to production electricity, and using it power electric furnaces-- which can heat the garbage to loopy high temperatures. Using additionally electricity, - say, from a windmill - would further help in the combustion of the garbage-- resulting the the garbage turning into plasma. To my understanding, molecules will keep breaking down, until the remaining waste is mostly harmless.
This plasma might be refined, or put into a gravity separator, etc., to pluck out gold and mercury, etc.

Of course, if the electrify is fed into the grid, then, we'd have to factor in the pollution that would have otherwise been produced to create the electricity.

Even if the heat produced through incineration is used to produce electricity to create plasma, and not to feed the grid, there will still be more than sufficient waste heat created to heat downtown buildings-- thus reducing demand for other forms of energy that would be otherwise required to heat downtown buildings.

"The garbage must be dealt with"


Agree...the question is what is the best way to do it...and it's clear that burning it is not the best way.







"and - quite frankly- we are not going to recycle 100% of it. Not going to happen."


Well, other than the fact you are not in a position to be "frank" about it in the first place...I disagree. "Recycle" is only one of the three "R's". By "reducing" and "reusing", it is definetely possible to produce zero, or close to zero waste that needs to be either burned into the atmosphere or buried in the ground.

Either way, it's far more plausable than your physics-defying schemes.








"One method to reduce pollution would be to use the electricity from the burning process to super heat the garbage -- to make the burn more complete, and to have less ash. "


You haven't been paying attention...reducing the amount of ash left in the incinerator, just means more of it has been released into the air.








"If the goal of incineration is to get rid of the garbage"


Still not listening....incineration does not get rid of a single molecule of garbage...it simply reduces the volume of garbage that has to be put in landfil....that is the purpose of an incinerator...to save landfill space. Why do you think Japan burns 75% of it's waste...it has no room. It prefers to send most of it into the atmosphere...lot's of room there...right? LOL!!







"heat the garbage to loopy high temperatures. "


"Loopy"...is that a new technical term? The only time I hear that term used, is in at 1001 Queen....where you should be. LOL!






"To my understanding, molecules will keep breaking down, until the remaining waste is mostly harmless."


Your understanding???? You don't understand simple physics. The temperatures are what causes relatively "harmless" waste to turn into deadly poisons in the first place.








"Using additionally electricity, - say, from a windmill "


Oh...so now you want to spend even more money building wind-powered generators to run incinerators....that's adding waste to waste.






"This plasma might be refined, or put into a gravity separator, etc., to pluck out gold and mercury, etc."



Hey...I have an idea....lets just save all the money on your costly incinerators, windmills, plasma generators and gravity separators, etc....and spend a fraction of that on facilities to re-use and recycle that garbage. Not only do we save a whole lot of money....we save the planet in the process. The "reducing" part actually doesn't cost anything....that's just takes some effort on everybody's part, and a little education.

Naw....that's too much of a wacky "liberal" idea. LOL!!






KGB

This plasma might be refined, or put into a gravity separator, etc., to pluck out gold and mercury, etc.

LOL......Why do you keep talking? You have absolutely no idea what you are saying here. You're just taking words and putting them together to form random sentences. I suggest you stop now before you continue to embarass yourself.

Wacky stuff, eh, this 100+ year old technology! Using heat and gravity to separate metals -just like they do at INCO and STELCO every day- nuts!
Metal, after all, is what the plasma would - by and large - be made of.
turboskyline- you should open your mind, and go to see Europe. Perhaps their screwball ideas might broaden your horizon.

KGB, I brought up generating electricity from burning garbage because AreBe brought it up. His point was that electricity could be generated from burning garbage. Hence the mentioning of electrical generation.

"Using heat and gravity to separate metals -just like they do at INCO and STELCO every day- nuts! "


Yea...but we are talking about garbage...not iron ore. How much metal are you expecting to extract from this garbage? Any actual metal would be recycled. The only metals in other waste is turned into the deadly kind that gets spewed into the atmosphere.

If you can still sit here and repeat the same lame line, then you deserve the ridicule.






KGB

AreBe kinda reminds me of the Rosenberg? fella (scruffy facial hair, pop-bottle glasses, etc.) that hands out typed in notes at various public meetings which present often old and often conflicting ideas.

I've seen this guy give a speech on how the Spadina Streetcar is a failure as it makes the street difficult to cross at intersections and complain about how the city is far too dense (anti-compact townhouse), while praising the province for stepping up to do something about sub-urban sprawl and street traffic.

If it wasn't for Mr. Rosenberg using typed notes (I'm fairly sure they aren't printed from a computer), I'd think they were the same person.

Japan burns 75% of it's waste -KGB
THOSE IDIOTIC ASIANS! As nutty as those screwball Europeans!
Burning garbage! HA!
Turning garbage -- free fuel -- into an asset - no, we would not want to do that!
Producing electricity AND reducing demand for electricty by heating downtown buildings with heat created by incineration -- CRAZY!!! Too screwball European! We can let those buffoons in Asia do it! But we Torontonians have a mentality that keeps us from breaking free from knee - jerk anti- incineration attitudes.

Why do you continue to repeat the same sarcastic remarks?

Do you actually consider them witty enough, as to withstand continuous repeating and be funny?

Or does it allow you to neglect discussing the topic on an intellectual basis, because you don't have a leg to stand on?






KGB

AreBe kinda reminds me of the Rosenberg? fella (scruffy facial hair, pop-bottle glasses, etc.) that hands out typed in notes at various public meetings which present often old and often conflicting ideas.

I've seen this guy give a speech on how the Spadina Streetcar is a failure as it makes the street difficult to cross at intersections and complain about how the city is far too dense (anti-compact townhouse), while praising the province for stepping up to do something about sub-urban sprawl and street traffic.

If it wasn't for Mr. Rosenberg using typed notes (I'm fairly sure they aren't printed from a computer), I'd think they were the same person.

Nahh... Are Be is really cool in real life. He's a lawyer. This mumble jumble he posts on the forums is probably some kind of secrect Osgoode Hall mating tactics, or arguments used in presenting his closing arguments to ensure that he lose every case.

In either case,

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/avatars/Bert.gif
:weirdo:

Nahh... Are Be is really cool in real life. He's a lawyer.

Good to hear. So how do we go about meeting "real life" AreBe in a sudo-anonymous forum?

AreBe's a lawyer. I'd hate to be his opponent.

AreBe's a lawyer. I'd hate to be his opponent.

Why? You'd probably win..

Unless he starts speaking in bolded typeface. I'd start to skip it.

I regret to say that I don't have an article to back this up, but my brother mentioned the other month a story he'd read about landfill miner's... yeah, people actually go through landfill garbage to take out the recyclable parts.

The verdict: 85% of the garbage that goes to landfills... IS RECYCLABLE!

Personally, I found that absolutely astounding :eek2: (followed by much brain-pain over the fact that human beings allow things to get to that point).

However, this still leaves 15% of unrecyclable waste. What to do?

I think that manufacturers need to be targetted. There should be legislation in place so that anything that is manufactured - from fast food packaging to the car you eat the fast food in - be 100% recyclable. Preferably, in a manner that isn't stupidly complex or expensive, or the whole idea backfires :bash:

Michigan okay with our trash


KERRY GILLESPIE
CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF

Michigan officials have given Toronto the green light to continue dumping trash in the state.

"We've known all along that what we were sending was safe and clean but now we have their acknowledgement," Jane Pitfield, chair of the works committee, said last night just after hearing the good news from Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality.

"This removes all doubt for anyone in Michigan who had concerns," said Pitfield (Ward 26, Don Valley West).

It was the concerns of people who live around the landfill in Michigan that prompted the state to pass tough new standards. Those come into effect Oct. 30 and bar such trash as medical and yard waste, pop cans and tires, from garbage trucks crossing the border.

The city sends more than 1 million tonnes of trash to Michigan and doesn't have anywhere else to dump it, so politicians were relieved by last night's news.

York Region, which ships about 160,000 tonnes to Michigan also got the all clear, a spokesperson said. There was no word on Durham's 145,000 tonnes, or Peel's 173,000 tonnes

The verdict: 85% of the garbage that goes to landfills... IS RECYCLABLE!

I would believe it. About 30 to 40% of my landfill waste is organic, but I don't have any other option at the moment.

I was reading about a 3 stream process (Guelph?) where residents sort garbage based on it's consistency (dry, wet, organic) and the city has sorters who worry about separating it out.

This way when new items are recyclable, it doesn't take huge advertising campaigns to get the job done, just retrain the small group of sorters.

Organic garbage can be burnt. Wet garbage could be pre-heated to dry it, then burnt. No sorters required: just a conveyor belt and a wind powered electric furnace (to 'supper burn' the garbage- less ash, etc.).
Use the heat created to heat downtown buildings.

Are Be, as a kid, did you like to play with matches?

Organic garbage can be burnt. Wet garbage could be pre-heated to dry it, then burnt. No sorters required: just a conveyor belt and a wind powered electric furnace (to 'supper burn' the garbage- less ash, etc.).
Use the heat created to heat downtown buildings.


:soapbox:
...


...


... :banned: ??

Toronto Star article:

Goodbye, Foreign Landfill

http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/98/2e/dafe3c3e4573912f470f012b807f.jpeg
A trailer containing Toronto garbage is dumped at the Carlton Landfill in Michigan in 2003, at the height of the city's shipments to the cross-border dump.
JASON KRYK FOR THE TORONTO STAR

Paul Moloney
December 29, 2010

Call it the Last Truck.

The final load of Toronto’s garbage bound for Michigan is slated to leave the city Thursday, ending a flow to stateside landfills that began in 1998 at 30 trucks a day and peaked at 140 daily in 2003, after the Keele Valley landfill in Vaughan was closed.

Along the way, Michigan politicians and citizens raised a stink about taking Toronto’s trash, while the city pleaded that it had no alternatives, with no landfill of its own (until 2007) after a plan to ship garbage to an old northern mine site was shot down in 2000.

“It’s very exciting,” Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon says of the demise of the Michigan convoy. “It’s about time we stopped shipping to someone else, because none of us would like that in our backyards.”

Michigan’s Carlton Farms landfill was the only game in town until mayor David Miller announced the $220 million purchase of the Green Lane landfill near London in 2007.

Toronto has ramped up shipments to Green Lane as the state of Michigan threw up obstacles and the city’s contract wound down with Republic Services, operator of Carlton Farms. The contract ends Friday and is not being renewed.

“I think Torontonians will be pleased we’re no longer trucking our waste to Michigan,” said Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, chair of the public works and infrastructure committee.

Even with Green Lane, pressure remains to increase recycling and composting efforts to extend Green Lane’s life as long as possible, he said. The landfill would last until 2034 if Toronto managed to divert 70 per cent of its solid waste by this year. But last year’s diversion rate was only 44 per cent, and kicking that up has proved difficult — meaning Green Lane will fill up quickly.

Only six loads a day have been going there; about 60 to Michigan. After this week, Green Lane gets all of it.

Minnan-Wong said more apartment buildings need to join the recycling and green-bin programs. “We have to get better or we’ll never hit 70 per cent diversion.”

McMahon said citizens need to become more vigilant at the other end, too: “My thing is to promote the R no one promotes, and that is refuse,” she said. “Refuse to buy things you don’t need, that you could borrow or buy second-hand, and refuse to buy over-packaged products.

“We need to be more mindful of the waste we create.”

THE BUMPY ROAD TO MICHIGAN

October 2000: Southwest Ontario mayors outraged by the prospect of garbage truck conga lines on the 401 complain Toronto’s “institutional arrogance” will come back to bite the city.

January 2001: U.S. environmental groups vow “to do what is necessary to convince our government to take action” against cross-border garbage. A crash spews garbage all over the 401 near Woodstock.

February 2001: Michigan’s governor, coached by premier Mike Harris, begs Toronto to send its trash to the Adams Mine instead. Mayor Mel Lastman fires back with a letter to president George W. Bush, asking him to tell Michigan to quit messing with Toronto.

March 2001: The first of a long succession of U.S. bills attempting to curb Toronto’s garbage flow is launched in the state legislature.

September 2001: Days before 9/11, state inspectors launch a blitz, testing border garbage for radioactive waste. They find nothing, but a year later, seven truckloads are caught carrying medical waste that is radioactive. Toronto buys its own radiation-testing equipment.

Spring 2003: Michiganders near the landfill sites form a protest group called Public Outrage. Thanks to Homeland Security regulations, trash is now undergoing high-tech inspections. The SARS virus heightens concerns; then a mad cow outbreak in Alberta leads to a brief closure of the border to Toronto’s waste.

July 2003: A Michigan state trooper testifies to the U.S. congress about her “disgusting" discovery of discarded blood and blood products crossing the border in a “bleeding” truck. "I don't believe the United States should be accepting another country's garbage," she says. Michiganders sign up in droves on a petition to ban Ontario waste.

October 2003: A crash spews garbage all over the 401 near Guelph. Garbage becomes a top issue in the municipal campaign, with mayoral contender John Tory advocating for incineration. Oops.

January 2004: Concerned about backlash, Toronto waste officials go to Michigan to explain that the $8 million worth of marijuana found in a load of trash wasn’t from Toronto. It came from Vaughan. Oh.

September 2004: Presidential contender John Kerry says he’ll ban Ontario waste if he gets elected. He doesn’t.

September 2006: A deal is struck with Michigan senators giving municipalities four years to phase out trash shipments, in return for dropping efforts to close the border to garbage. Halton, Durham and York regions discuss incineration. Toronto buys the Green Lane landfill. New Year’s Eve, 2010, looms.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/913411--goodbye-foreign-landfill

Wonder how much income and jobs were lost in Michigan as a result of their not wanting our junk! :)

Fun reading this old time thread. I'd completely forgotten about "Screwball Europeans"! :lol: