Trash burning power plants are.....ok, but not without their faults
They pollute a LOT…When I lived in Goffstown NH they tried to put one in. A couple of professors at St Anselm’s college lived in Goffstown and new of the dangers with them and organized a fight against them. They brought in a professor from NY who’s been studying them for years to talk with us about them.
Here are a couple things I remember from that meeting.
. First he said that they can be made safer…IF AND ONLY IF you recycle first
. Without first removing ALL plastics (and a huge list of other items) then the plants become very very dangerous. Burning plastic and paper together can create very harmful chemicals.
. He had films of plants run by the same company (wheelabrator technologies) showing them burning paper and plastic…even though the town had a recycling program. Not everyone complies with the recycling program. And the company says it cost too much to separate the incoming trash (1500 tons a day).
. At the time there was a plant in Gilford NH. Been operating for 10 years…and it still wasn’t approved by the EPA for operation.
. If these plants are so safe then why do even they recommend that you can’t build them near schools and retirement communities.
. More energy is wasted driving the trash to the plants then the plant puts out.
@Mike re: perc plant (Penobscot energy recover plant) so called, built near our school.
After we scared the plant out of our small town where we resided, they ended up locating just across the river less then a mile from where I worked. I could not get enough of the people interested in going to the meetings in the town across the river, even though the prevailing winds brought the smoke over my working town. After the plant was in, the complaints started.
I could only say to those parents; " I told you so, you should have shown more interest " when the faculty at the school kept reminding you to. Another case of too little to late. They now have a new 40 plus million dollar school that filters the outside air before entry. Wonder why they now felt a need ? When big money greases the palms of the politicians , citizens have to stand up and scream. Officials will respond, but no noise is a yes vote as far as they are concerned.
Profiteers always claim it costs too much to do the right thing…it’s the size of their profit not the harm that they create that means more to most.
Profiteers always claim it costs too much to do the right thing....it's the size of their profit not the harm that they create that means more to most.
When I was a kid there was a city incinerator. Every couple weeks we’d load the station wagon up and head to the incinerator. Drove over the plate, opened it up, and dumped everything into a big inferno. Worked pretty good. Now everything is transported 7 miles and buried. Seems a waste.
I see the Brita ad on television that mention we buy enough bottled water for the bottles to reach around the earth several times. That may be an exaggeration or a lie but no doubt we are producing too much plastic for bottling drinks, etc. 50 years ago I worked in a grocery store in a town of 6,000. There were 4 soft drink bottlers and 2 dairies. Today that town has a population of 36,000 and there are no bottlers or dairies and, in fact, the bakery that was here closed. Plastic bottles and cheap, fast highway transportation seemed to be the major factor with the sodas and milk. Can we charge the dairies and bottlers and bottle makers for the cost of hauling and burying the bottles? That would be more fair than adding the cost to our taxes.
The bottles are recycled in Minnesota so no harm no foul. I don’t drink the water and actually the tap water is better quality than the bottled water plus it has fluoride for the teeth. Can’t convince the wife though. If kids are wondering why their teeth are rotting, they are drinking too much bottled water.
When I was in the can plant right after college, there was a big ban the can movement in Minnesota that we had to fight off. That was before the whole recycling network when everything was thrown away. Now its all re-melted again so no one hollers about using cans
I’m not terribly old, but even I remember returning glass bottles to the grocery store for reuse when I was younger.
The sorting of trash and those that don’t do it are the reason I mentioned the extra surcharge on their trash bill. If you had to pay $50 a month for trash service because you didn’t want to sort your trash(or sorted wrong), you might think twice, especially if they seen the bill might be $20/month if they DID sort the trash correctly.
Let us think about gun control as long as the chief is on that bandwagon. Limit the rights of 99% is not my idea. If a guy wants a Corvette, and I say you do not need a Corvette should it become law? The other facet of this discussion is mental health,
I think this may be illuminating
But because my wife was on Prozac for a bit because of a spinal fusion gone wrong we can no longer go deer hunting? It is like we are attempting to craft a law for the .1% that will affect the other 99.9% If I gift my daughter my Harpers Ferry Rifle, I have to pay a $20 background check? If I buy a $10 box of 22 cal bullets there will be a $20 background check?
I dunno, this is kind of fun. I’ve got to agree with you Barky. I heard that a presidential report back in the 70’s recommended confiscation of all hand guns. I think that’s what all of us are concerned about-that slippery slope thing that has happened over and over and over again.
I’m not sure that the drug connection has been shown yet but it certainly can cause some erratic behavior. I’m not surprized though that the pharmacists and psychologists pushing drugs would not want to study the whole issue. Got a kid with ADD, give him a couple of these pills.
I am amazed at how eager doctors are to prescribe Xanax. In recent years I have known several people who have been prescribed that drug and their mood and personality made significant changes. One became confrontational, emotional and violent to her teenage daughter. Another was unable to keep a job and divorced due to mood swings that were becoming more and more pronounced. A third became delusional and began to live in a fantasy world and attempted suicide. For the life of me I don’t see how the drug is considered useful in the face of all the problems.
RK,xanax is a funny beast,all it ever done for me was knock me out.I wish none of the kids were ever exposed to to the benzios and opiates,One of George Bush 's daughter had a problem with Xanax it was said,so the problem is widespread-but on the other hand for some its good medicine,prozac is the same way.
But all things taken into consideration,I seriously believe that adults should be allowed to do pretty much as they want as long as it doesnt harm others,the legal drugs do far more harm by a wide margin then the illegal ones and you better believe that some of the ones that scream and push enforcement are problem users themselves( it seems that a lot of stuff disappears from the evidence room) We need fewer laws and more effective laws and we need education to encourage people to act responsibly, I’m definitely not for gun control,but I do believe that revolvers are a good enough personal protection device for anyone,bulky and heavy-ever seen a TT19?
Anyway this brings me to edict No.60-sports and atheletics should be be anything goes within certain parameters,classes are sort of self regulating,I feel this may stop a lot of scrambling for loopholes and level the playing field a bit,we already have enough people locked up due to technicalities-Kevin
"I heard that a presidential report back in the 70’s recomended the confiscation of all guns "
I would like to see that report. “confiscation of guns” has never happened and never will as far as the general public is conserned. The federal law is very lax and always has been. A law abiding citizen with a little money, motivation, and no criminal record can own a machine gun. That they are not the weapon of choice for criminals and anyone who would do harm is proof positive that licensing works. That has nothing to do with confiscation…
The NRA supports ANYONE owning a hand gun ( or any weapon ) so that gun sales can go unabated to criminals and those who could never buy one legally. It’s that simple. The NRA takes a position that supports criminal ownership of guns for monitory gain. No hand guns need to be confiscated but the hypocrites have to be revealed.
“Remember kids: Just say no to drugs!”
“Have you taken your Ritalin, Jimmy? You need it to pay attention in class.”
@dagosa Even the NRA is cool with the universal background checks Obama proposed. I just wonder how NY is gonna enforce the 7 round rule now. I read that when they first wrote the bill, even the cops would have been breaking the law by having more than 7 rounds in their magazines
@dagosa I think I said all “hand guns” not guns. No one would be stupid enough to go for all gun until at least a couple generations have been re-educated. I can’t remember where I saw or heard it. Might have been last weeks Time magazine or something. If I find it I’ll share it though, but it just illustrated a long felt goal from some corners.
@bing
You are right, i did say guns as what I was referring too was ANY gun including handguns. I feel though that any firearm we decide should be controlled can be put in the class of a full auto and the affects would be similar. We don’t confiscate full autos, just license and track them.
One of the most dangerous weapons fear by police is the sniper rifle, espcially the Barrett .50 cal which goes UN regulated and in the hands of a terrorist, could be extremely dangerous. But, it’s still not the weapon of choice with criminals or even home defense because of the difficulty in shooting them and the training required.
As far as handguns are concerned, I feel a strong case could be made for licensing owners and registering the gun…
@bscar2
Every time I hear them speak or articles written, I get the Impression they want no additional gun laws. They constanly state that there are thousands of gun laws that do no good. What they always fail to say is that all but a few are state laws which can be circumvented by access of guns through unregulated states. For full background checks to work, the gun registration should be included in the sale and background check. They are definitely agaisnt that.
The official position of the NRA is that the only way to stop a bad man with a gun, is a good man with a gun. They are then happy to have the gun manufacturers provide weapons for everyone, both bad and good, while they sit back and watch the carnage and feel no responsibility. If left to their own devices, would any supporter of the NRA in the legislature, even propose restricting the sale of ANY armor ment or amunition type what so ever. I could see full autos firing exploding ammo, available to anyone without restriction. That is how they come across IMO.
If they are OK with full background checks, THEIR supporters would have proposed them years ago and they would be on the books.