Moon is best for dumping the waste of earth

By the way, now I read the article you're mentioning. Yes, its arguments seem quite reasonable, however I don't tend to agree with that part "come on, we ain't running out of anything". We have unimaginable quantities of various resources turned into junk. Wouldn't it be wise to recover all that? I'd say it would.

[sunofsky]

Carnifex, as you said " we have unimaginable quantities of various resources turned into junk" out of which how many can recycle or how many of them can be re use, and it is much costly today to recyle and re use the junk things wisely. hence they are not at all useful for the earth's environment and on the ground and in water also. hence these things must have to dump at a different station.

[Dragon Star]

Originally Posted by Khrushchev's Other Shoe

Furthermore, if, as Dragon Star claims, recycling is the only viable solution, the mechanism proposed in the article will result in recycling. So I have no idea why he reacts so badly to the article.

I was only really reacting to the teachers experiment with recycling in your article, because it's false thinking...who is going to recycle one or two cans with gloves and masks or whatnot and not do more then that if they are going to do it at all? The point I was making is that is totally inefficient, the whole point behind recycling is to be as efficient as possible.

So far, I get the impression you don't know the answers to the following questions:

a) Does a problem exist?

Yes.

b) If so, how serious is it?

Little threat as of now, but it is quickly becoming a problem because we currently pile up our trash and even bury it in some cases, leaving it there for possibly millions of years. If recycling is indeed the way to go, what do we do about this? Because I can tell you that no one is going to start digging up trash to recycle when it is covered in harmful chemicals. And this problem only grows...Millions of tons per day and rising...

c) Does a proposed solution actually solve the problem?

Unknown: But unless a serious effort is placed into trying how can we know for sure?

[quote]d) Is it the best solution to the problem?[quote]

This is exactly the whole point of everything I have said, as of now it probably is not the best solution, but honestly it IS the only solution that we can make work for this situation because we CAN make it efficient and worth while.

Let me go ahead and say that I do stand behind recycling for reasons posted above, but-I am NOT saying that it is the only thing we have to do, there very well may be other things out there we can do to dispose of our waste in a better way, some kind of a universal break down solvent that releases no harmful chemicals or something, but that is WAY down the road and is pretty far fetched in thinking, but we can start to process recycling now, and I see little reason why not...

[sunofsky]

recycled plastic waste is also a hazard to health, and there is no space on the earth to complete plastic dispose off process, only recycling is remain.

My guess is the small amount of recycling we are doing at present is costing (not saving) society by most accounting methods, except long term, and our knowledge of the future is hazzy. Aluminum and more costly metals are likely sensible to recycle larger scale.
We should continue to add voluntary recyling programs, as these are good pilot programs, for improving our skills.
I call my proposal recyle 2. Each Saturday citizens put out discards that might be useful to someone sometime. Scavengers pick out what they think they can use. The rest is hauled to the recycle 2 site where it is arranged by subject somewhat like a Walmart store. Other citizen shop for free merchandise, hopefully saving perhaps half of the stuff from the land fill for a year or so. The main costs would be for fuel for the Saturday pick up, the land and shelves to display the merchandise and occasional medical treatment for a volunteer who got sick as the possible result of exposure to the discards. The volunteers could also take what they wanted for resale or personel use. A very small portion of the discards would be sold in a thrift store, but that would likely produce negligible revenue. Neil

Nope, not gonna work. Just because people are restricted with their psychology, and one of them restrictions is "If something was in a trash bin, it's junk" even though that something is fully operating. No one would buy.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Originally Posted by Carnifex

Nope, not gonna work. Just because people are restricted with their psychology, and one of them restrictions is "If something was in a trash bin, it's junk" even though that something is fully operating. No one would buy.

Then call it 'surplus house-goods'.

I worked at Kringloop here in the Netherlands for a while, and we did.
(8,000+ tonnes of goods collected per year in an area with 100,000 households.)

You don't want scavengers to get there hands on the goodies first.
Furniture is a good money maker.
Make an appointment and we come pick it up.

Electric appliances and refrigerators must be recycled (by EU directive).
There is an big infrastructure to deal with it.
You pay for it in advance when you buy. ('Disposal contribution')

The principle is The polluter pays.

You pay the city to collect and dispose your garbage.
You pay per unit!
The city has to pay for dumping (very rare) or incineration.
Typically €100,- or more per tonne.

So there is an incentive for everybody to reduce waste.

The secret is: separation at the source.

Paper and (bottle) glass (both very easy to recycle) can be deposited
in containers in every neighbourhood.
Clothing is collected this way by charitable organisations.

Lots of bottles, crates, and other packaging can be returned for the deposit.

The rest you offer to the city separated.
Chemical waste (batteries, oil, fluorescent lamps, etc. (this is free)),
green waste (kitchen and garden waste, gets composted) and grey
waste (most of the rest).

For the remainder you call Kringloop. What we don't want to take you'll
have bring to the city pound yourself, and pay for disposal.

There are three types of recycling.

- Re-use as was.
Lots of stuff can be sold even without having to fix it.
In an affluent society people will throw out stuff that's still perfectly good,
or requires only minor repairs.
Furniture, trinkets, books, gramophone records, videos, CDs, cutlery, toys, tools,
computers, table ware, artwork (I have a Picasso print on my wall), bicycles.
You can't imagine the stuff people have.

- Re-use in a different function.
Let your imagination run wild.
I've seen an antique washing-machine used as a garden flowerpot.

- Actual recycling. Re-use of the constituent materials.
Wood (from broken furniture) can be used as fuel or recycled into fibreboard.
Metals. Aluminium and plumbing fixtures are especially interesting.
Textile floor coverings can be recycled.
Porcelain/earthenware can be recycled.
Some plastics can be recycled, if properly separated.
Etc.

The problem with this system is that it is very labour intensive.
There are payed employees, volunteers, people with disability, people
in back-to-work programmes, people sentenced to community service, etc.

It also requires a lot of transport (energy intensive).

We need better technology.

But it works.
The country is a lot cleaner then it used to be.

I also pay the watership for effluent treatment.
Surface and ground water must be clean so the water utility company
can use it to provide running watter (for which you also pay).

Basically, make sure everybody has to pay themselves for the mess they make.

[Bill Thompson]

Originally Posted by sunofsky

today on earth, how to manage the waste materials is just a serious plight and for this we have to search the ulternate to minimize this problem of waste-dumping. even for our environment many substances proved that they are more hazardous not for the health but for the total system of the earth, moon is the best in this regard to keep the wastage materials thereon. what is your opinion in this regard, that how moon may become useful for earth?

Instead of using the moon to dump nuclear waste, I think we should use the moon to gather solar power and have that power beamed back via microwave. This has been one of the reasons written for colonizing the moon.

As for other non-hazard waste, in Germany, by law, everything is recycled. Other countries are just not accustomed to doing this.

[sunofsky]

will that power can transfer on earth through "wireless" medium, your though is quite nice, and there is need to install the "solar bataries on the surface of the moon, since there is no sea, since there is no big water tanks hence there is no more barricades to install the system, that can be easily install there to get the solar energy, and can it be transfer through the sattelite to provide it on the earth based station, or we can say that the going teams can also refil the solar energy into their batteries by landing their vehicle on the moon, and it will be free of cost, because there are no costs on the moon. yet.

sunil

According to Nicoli Tesla fans, he had a means to transmit energy wirelessly. The only method known to mainstream science is 10% to 30% efficient as proposed for the SPS = solar power satellite in GEO stationary orbit. The efficiency from moon to Earth would be much lower, unless done very large scale. Also most locations on the moon alternate 13 days of night, 13 days of day light. Batteries are heavy and only average 50% efficiency, but better batteries may be available soon.
I find it hard to justify "there are no costs on the moon yet" Neil