AMEN.
--- Previous Message in This Thread ---
Subject: Re:[LF] NTC: Toxic computers (cont)
From: Joe Fjelstad <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, February 12, 2010 4:11:21 PM
>
>
>
> As the "Greenies" say, "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" in that order. Most here at LEADFREE are interested in keeping what they have from that last "R" for as long as possible. For a whole spectrum of reasons, society needs to work those first two "R"s much harder than it does nowadays...
>
>
> Hello Marcus,
>
>
>
> Good point. I think all here are likely to be in general accord with your statement. Below is a snip from an essay published yesterday.
>
>
>
> "InJapan, the manufacturing community has rallied around the idea thatthere is need to build products tied to the goals the "Three Rs"…reduce, (materials and energy), reuse and recycle.
> These are worthy objectives, however, one might conclude that thesethree Rs, writ small, can be easily taken in and addressed a single,bigger R, writ large, encompasses all of the three smaller Rs. That bigR stands for reliability."
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcus L. Thompson <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:40 pm
> Subject: Re: [LF] NTC: Toxic computers (cont)
>
>
> For the community --
>
> "Climate Change" (aka AGW):
>
> http://www.drroyspencer.com/
> http://www.friendsofscience.org/
> http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
>
> Robust science? Consensus? I think I hear "Yakety Sax" starting to play somewhere out there...
>
> (Pssst, Werner: It's nowhere near 60% ;o)
>
> Recycling? Yes, as long as it's not pursued as a pseudoreligious compulsion. Balance and common sense must govern based upon the intrinsic hazard profile of the item involved, and the exigencies of the local population. On the cuckoo end of things, a huge swath here in the Pacific Northwest behave as if they've seen too many reruns of "Soylent Green" on late-night television when it comes to the daily event of "taking out the trash."
>
> As the "Greenies" say, "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" in that order. Most here at LEADFREE are interested in keeping what they have from that last "R" for as long as possible. For a whole spectrum of reasons, society needs to work those first two "R"s much harder than it does nowadays...
>
> Buses vs. Light Rail:
>
> Balance again.
>
> Light rail may indeed promise significant increases in efficiency (by more than one metric) for tomorrow's mass transit. It should be a prime and ongoing consideration when rebuilding in congested urban spaces, and when setting up new communities surrounding densely populated locations. However, it doesn't make sense everywhere right now.
>
> As for what we presently have on our plate with those thousands of filthy buses crawling about our streets (double-length buses on Seattle side streets!), well, the pollution which they generate is absolutely unnecessary. PERIOD.
>
> Indeed, the worst offenders are the SCHOOL BUSES WHICH OUR CHILDREN RIDE every morning and afternoon. CNG should be absolutely MANDATED for these public vehicles (sorry, hybrid helps, but it just doesn't cut it. And yes, I do know). The City of Phoenix has been running CNG-fueled buses for years; and the pollution profile for the units so fitted is comparatively nil.
>
> See http://www.catf.us/projects/diesel/ for more food for thought.
>
> Prosit!
>
>
> --- Previous Message in This Thread ---
> Subject: [LF] NTC: Toxic computers (cont)
> From: Brian Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Friday, February 12, 2010 7:46:20 AM
>
>>> [rant]
>> I've been following the debate here and have deliberately not joined in, > up to now, because it is not a single subject, but half-a-dozen > completely independent ones, all mixed up, higgledy-piggledy. It is > therefore impossible to follow a logical sequence of arguments. (In any > case, although the LF forum may have been the correct place to start, > this should really have gone to the EnviroNet board!)
>>> Some of the newer members may not know me so please forgive me if I > briefly state that I have been working with various high-level > government agencies and the United Nations Environment Programme for > nigh on 3 decades, initially on ozone depletion and later climate > change, both atmospheric science-based. Notwithstanding, my academic > background started 60-odd years ago in electronics.
>>> In my environmental specialities, I doubt whether there are any serious > atmospheric scientists who would deny today that ozone depletion, due > mainly to man-made organic halogenated compounds, is fact, pure and > simple. This was not always the case; when the Montreal Protocol was > signed in September 1987, the science was certainly shaky, although > there was considerable circumstantial evidence in its favour. Just one > year later, the scientific proof was empirically demonstrated, combined > with sound explanations why the so-called "ozone-hole" was found where > CFCs etc. were not emitted. Scepticism is a healthy reaction to such > explanations and even proof, and it took the best part of 10 years > before 99% of the scientific community realised that anthropogenic > ozone-depletion was for real.
>>> Moving to climate change, the science is already advanced and is > improving daily. We are now at the stage where few atmospheric > scientists deny the reality that humans are changing the atmosphere > (there is plenty of solid proof, even confirming Arrhenius' hypothesis > and calculations that CO2 emissions would cause climate change, well > over 100 years ago). There may still be some doubt in the minds of the > few more recalcitrant persons as to the respective proportions due to > man-made and natural phenomena, but that is not the crux of the matter. > The science is now robust, even with the uncertainties of some of the > details.
>>> Coming back to the thread, I'm still amazed at the difference in > attitude on the two sides of the Atlantic, not at the facts of life, but > at the cynicism -- which is NOT the same as scepticism -- expressed on > environmental matters on the west side. Even from the relative > intelligentsia of some of the members of this forum, I shudder at some > of the statements. I'm not sure whether this is due to ignorance or > deliberate denial, in some cases. Don't get me wrong, some from the east > side of that sea are also manifestly mistaken, as well.
>>> I think that some of this may be due to envirofatigue: nagging the same > thing over and over again is a terrible waste of time and energy and the > popular media must take a whole lot of blame for this. In particular, I > decry the extreme scenarios (in both senses) that the tabloids so love > to propagate (even those English ones that pretend to be serious, like > the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail) to try and convince everyone that it > is baloney. These rags will change their tune, like the Sun, if a > Conservative government gets in later this year.
>>> I won't go into details because there have been so many right and so > many wrong things, at least in my opinion, scattered around this > subject. However, there is one thing I shall categorically state: the > future of mankind, in the long term, must rest on recycling as many > molecules and atoms as we can. All our physical resources are limited in > quantity and everything that is thrown away and becomes irrecoverable is > a resource lost to our children and grandchildren. I say this > irrespective of cost: today's valueless PE or PP insulation may be > tomorrow's fuel that drives us to work in our 8th generation hybrid car!
>>> I therefore appeal for more thought and reflection on where we are > really heading, rather than gut-feeling and especially total or partial > denial.
>>> Sorry to take this to a slightly more philosophical level than expressed > in some of the other post. Let battle now be enjoined!
>> [/rant]
>>> Brian
>>>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or > [log in to unmask] > ______________________________________________________________________
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee > Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks > send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>> Please visit IPC web site > http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional > information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 > ext.2815
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] ______________________________________________________________________
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
> Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
