San Francisco bans traditional plastic grocery bags
- Thread starter CBC News
- Start date
I think that this recycling trip is almost a complete fraud.
90 percent of garbage (no matter what bin you separate it into) goes to the same landfill. The city recycling plants are miniscule compared to the amount of refuse being generated. They are there for show and tell only. The costs of employing all the workers required to actually sift through the garbage is too prohibitive.
Recycling is great for private companies because they check for any excuse to issue a ticket and huge fines for improper disposal. They low-bid to get the contract and then subsidize with tickets and fines.
The same thing can be said about all the anti-smoking laws.
I believe that the rise of lung cancer was a direct result of Nuclear Testing during the 1940's and 1950's and not so much because of smoking. I am not suggesting that smoking does not contribute to cancer, but rather it was an excuse used to immunize the American government from lawsuits pertaining to their nuclear weapons program.
In the 1950's, the Eastman Kodak Company had threatened a federal lawsuit over the nuclear fallout resulting from a total of 235 above-ground bomb tests that was fogging Kodak's bulk film shipments.
Film was not packed in bubble wrap then, but in corn stalks that were being contaminated by nuclear fallout. (Just think of the Health effects that this had on the parents and offspring.)
As a result of the threatened lawsuit, the U.S. government chose to warn the photographic film industry about the radioactive fallout patterns in advance, but not the general public.
Cancer rates increased because of milk consumption and especially with infants.
In addition; there are huge benefits from disallowing smoking in office towers. There is a huge decrease in maintenance costs because of fewer air filters needed to be changed and fewer paint applications being applied within the structures. And most importantly, fewer air exchanges required meant less oil/gas needed for heating structures and buildings.
90 percent of garbage (no matter what bin you separate it into) goes to the same landfill. The city recycling plants are miniscule compared to the amount of refuse being generated. They are there for show and tell only. The costs of employing all the workers required to actually sift through the garbage is too prohibitive.
Recycling is great for private companies because they check for any excuse to issue a ticket and huge fines for improper disposal. They low-bid to get the contract and then subsidize with tickets and fines.
The same thing can be said about all the anti-smoking laws.
I believe that the rise of lung cancer was a direct result of Nuclear Testing during the 1940's and 1950's and not so much because of smoking. I am not suggesting that smoking does not contribute to cancer, but rather it was an excuse used to immunize the American government from lawsuits pertaining to their nuclear weapons program.
In the 1950's, the Eastman Kodak Company had threatened a federal lawsuit over the nuclear fallout resulting from a total of 235 above-ground bomb tests that was fogging Kodak's bulk film shipments.
Film was not packed in bubble wrap then, but in corn stalks that were being contaminated by nuclear fallout. (Just think of the Health effects that this had on the parents and offspring.)
As a result of the threatened lawsuit, the U.S. government chose to warn the photographic film industry about the radioactive fallout patterns in advance, but not the general public.
Cancer rates increased because of milk consumption and especially with infants.
In addition; there are huge benefits from disallowing smoking in office towers. There is a huge decrease in maintenance costs because of fewer air filters needed to be changed and fewer paint applications being applied within the structures. And most importantly, fewer air exchanges required meant less oil/gas needed for heating structures and buildings.
Last edited:
