Davy,

A classic example of researchers accepting grant money for bogus reasons
because "it for a good cause", is the Loch Ness Monster.  When public
notoriety of the Loch Ness Monster reached an all time high, local
legislators finally appropriated millions to the search for the monster.
Researchers flocked to grab the money in order to conduct research.  Now,
none of the researchers believed there was a monster, but....it "allowed
legitimate marine research on deep Lochs".  Granted, valuable science did
come from the research, its just unfortunate how it came about.  (By the
way.....there is no lake monster).

Kind Regards

Ryan Grant
Advanced Technology Engineer
MCMS
(208) 898-1145
[log in to unmask]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Davy, Gordon [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 7:19 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      [LF] Recycling and irresponsibility
>
> Seth Goodman has questioned my assertion that recycling end-of-life
> electronics is a waste of money. He says, "the motive for recycling is the
> reduction in volume of our solid waste stream."
> First we need to remember that end-of-life electronic products constitute
> one percent of municipal solid waste. If it hadn't been for activists
> looking for an issue, I doubt that anyone would have even considered such
> a
> minor constituent. Also, in response to Brian Ellis's comment, the amount
> of
> mining and refining that would be avoided by electronics recycling is too
> small to notice, as I'm sure that the leadfree life-cycle analysis will
> conclude. If the activists can't find a bigger opportunity than this to go
> after, they should declare victory, return the remaining money in their
> treasuries to their donors, and dissolve their organizations.
> The motive for recycling should be to reduce the cost of handling solid
> municipal waste. If due to local situation the cost of disposal is higher,
> then in that region recycling of some things might turn out to be an
> economical alternative. But if it turns out that loading the refuse in a
> truck and hauling it five hundred miles away to an acceptable location is
> less expensive, then that is what should be done. (Brian, high-value scrap
> already gets recycled.) Economics, not idealism. Adam Smith's "invisible
> hand" will make it happen automatically. In fact, if recycling makes
> economic sense, then there is no need for any deliberative or legislative
> body to take any action to promote it, other than to ensure that the costs
> are accurately known. To that end, governments can institute a "pay as you
> throw" policy, to ensure that the amount that people are charged
> accurately
> reflects the cost of disposal, and is not being subsidized by tax money.
> Where this has been tried, it has reduced the volume by a lot more than
> diverting all electronic products would. See
> http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/payt/ .
>
> Mr. Goodman says "I might also suggest to Gordon that he try to avoid
> pairing every occurrence of the word environmentalist with irresponsible.
> While he never directly states that all environmentalists are
> irresponsible
> propagandists, ..."
> I don't know what fraction of all environmentalists is irresponsible, and
> it
> doesn't really matter. It's the irresponsible ones who are causing the
> problem. These are the ones who love to talk about greedy irresponsible
> industrialists. I thought about including "greedy" in my characterization
> of
> them - perhaps introduce an acronym: GIEAs. At least industrialists admit
> to
> being in business to make money. The GIEAs exploit people's concern for
> the
> environment to pursue their own selfish ends. Edward Szpruch identified an
> additional source of funding (grants to research people) that I hadn't
> considered. It must be tempting to people who need to raise money, to try
> to
> frighten people into supporting them - it seems to work so well. And if
> you
> have to mislead them to accomplish your ends, you can always rationalize
> "Well, it's for a good cause."
> Maybe it would help if responsible environmentalists would distance
> themselves from the irresponsible ones by publicly criticizing their
> tactics. Their silence might be interpreted by some as condoning them.
>
> Gordon Davy
> Baltimore, MD
> [log in to unmask]
> 410-993-7399
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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 delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET
> Leadfree NOMAIL
> Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases >
> E-mail Archives
> Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for
> additional
> information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700
> ext.5315
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadfee Mail List provided as a free 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 delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------