Waste, what should we do?

[Sean]

With the world creating more and more household waste space in land-fills is quickly running out.

Even with up to 70% of general waste being recyclable/compostable we will run out of space...

So what do we do?

[bombmaniac]

incinerate...?

seiously though...if it gets to be too much of an issue (and i mean globally...not that "oh it may be a problem in a million years) we could conceivably just send it into space...space has no atmosphere to pollute...theres already tons of junk out there...no one gives a SHIRT...perfect

[Sean]

And that produces HUGE levels of pollution. Not to mention the amount of poisonous gases caused from burning plastics.

[bombmaniac]

So you focused on the first word I said...and nothing else. Unless you meant pollution from the spacecraft in which case...don't you think that by the time trash is a REAL concern we will have some kind of alternative fuel or at least a way of curbing the amount of pollutants released?

[Sean]

I typed that before you edited it.

[Ryan]

Incineration is considerably cleaner than you believe Sean - I believe more research on your part (and both of your parts) is necessary. Spacejunk is actually not a safe method of waste containment and removal, unless space waste is combined with incineration (shoot the waste into the sun). Many countries in Europe use incineration as both a means of waste removal and as a means of energy source (burning waste produces heat which can be used for power). The reason incineration has not caught on here in America is because people are either 1. Misinformed and think incineration is extremely poluting and toxic or 2. don't like the idea of trash being burned.

Really though - incineration is one of the best (if not the best) options for removal and treatment of waste.

[Insane_Zang]

Everything that Ryan just said

[bombmaniac]

why would spacejunk not be safe? im sot saying it should orbit earth...

[Ryan]

Space junk (unless destroyed by something like the sun or other incineratoric body {Venus would work too}) runs the risk of being redirected towards earth, even if it is not in orbit around earth. Also, as it is junk, it runs the risk of separating in space, which could lead to unaccountability when planning space flight, which may not be a possibility in the near future, but perhaps within 100 or even 1000 years. Since space cannot be polluted, space junk cannot be broken down, and so space junk would not degrade like junk and waste does here on earth. The junk we shoot into space today will stay there until something hits it, or it returns to earth (or to some other celestial body).

Anything that runs the risk of hitting something man made - be it from falling out of orbit into the atmosphere, or accidental collision with a space craft in the future, it is not safe.

[bombmaniac]

i hardly think that a soda can would survive reentry

[Ryan]

A soda can would not, but we wouldn't shoot junk into space one piece at a time. 100 tons of soda cans would probably survive reentry.

In regard to the post below - that's what makes it not safe. Imagine a 100 ton block of soda cans entering the atmosphere. That is NOT SAFE.

[bombmaniac]

assume that they were somehow stuck together...

[SwimFellow]

I can think of recycling. Instead of throwing away a magazine, make it into a paper mache (yes, I know it's spelled incorrectly) sculpture, or draw in it, or whatever!

However, there's no way to do that with nuclear waste. We're stuck with that.

[Insane_Zang]

I can make a hat out of the radioactive waste... then die

[Sean]

Apr 12, 2011 15:19:55 GMT -5 Insane_Zang said:

I can make a hat out of the radioactive waste... then die

LOL, best place to put it... on your head.

Try radioactive shoes, they are so comfortable!

[Insane_Zang]

Orgasm shoes are better
/obscureAlexDayreferences

[Deleted]

Off topic: The shooting the trash into space immediately reminded me of the Futurama episode in which a trash meteorite is about to crash the earth

On topic: After recycling, I think that incineration is a plausible alternative, nonetheless, it is important to remind ourselves that the waste made, both in our homes as well as in industry, is increasingly bigger, and most of this waste could be avoided. For example, if there was no planned obsolescence, most of the electronics in our houses could last a lot more, therefore there would not be as many possibly useful resources being thrown away every year with no chance of recovery, nor would our resources decay so quickly.

Just my quick 2¢.

[Draemora]

Just reminding everyone that the price to send something into space is over $20,000 per pound.

Incineration kills two birds with one stone.

[UnfairBear]

Apr 12, 2011 16:21:37 GMT -5 @ptmb said:

On topic: After recycling, I think that incineration is a plausible alternative, nonetheless, it is important to remind ourselves that the waste made, both in our homes as well as in industry, is increasingly bigger, and most of this waste could be avoided. For example, if there was no planned obsolescence, most of the electronics in our houses could last a lot more, therefore there would not be as many possibly useful resources being thrown away every year with no chance of recovery, nor would our resources decay so quickly

Yeah, that probably won't happen. Big corporations like getting money from refills and replacements far too much to save the world.

[ryan]

1 idea is plopp it in a volcano?..expensive but not as expensive as to space...OR TO THE SUN