RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: San Francisco: Too Dumb For Bottled Water?

Posted by: Boxman
- [571114225] Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 08:12

Newsom Bans Bottled Water Purchases By City

SAN FRANCISCO -- Mayor Gavin Newsom on Friday issued an executive order to permanently phase out the purchasing of bottled water by the city and county of San Francisco.

The region's water delivery system, produced from snowmelt stored in the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and flowing down the Tuolumne River, produces among the safest, purest drinking water in the nation, Newsom wrote in the directive.

By contrast, the bottled water industry has had profound negative environmental effects, Newsom said, its plastic bottles requiring oil to produce, and releasing one billion pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. More than a billion plastic water bottles end up in California landfills annually, he said, taking 1,000 years to biodegrade and leaking toxic additives into the groundwater.

"Over the last decade, San Franciscans have responded to marketing campaigns to purchase bottled water and record amounts of bottled water have been purchased by San Franciscans at the expense of the environment," Newsom wrote.

Beginning July 1, all city departments and agencies will be prohibited from purchasing single serving bottles of water using city funds, unless an employee contract specifies usage. The ban will also apply to city contractors and city-funded or sponsored events.

By Sept. 30, all city departments or agencies occupying city or rental properties will have completed an audit to determine the viability of switching from bottled water dispensers to bottle-less water dispensers that use Hetch-Hetchy supplied water.

By December 1, all city departments will have installed bottle-less water dispensers, according to Newsom's order. Waivers will be granted to by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission based on legitimate engineering, health and fiscal concerns, Newsom said.


Liberal haven Seattle is now trying to get rid of microwave popcorn and the liberal capital of the country SF is now targeting bottled water.

Just a thought. If the big liberal governments (not to say there aren't big so-called conservative governments) are banning foods, why not start with the ones that are actually unhealthy for you? Grow some balls and go after the peddlers of 1,000 calorie burgers like McDonald's, Burger King and the like.

There's a place in Illinois, I'm not sure if they're nationwide, called Culver's. They offer something called a Butter Burger. I've never been there and never tried one, but they might as well call it "Death On A Bun".

But we're worried about popcorn and bottled water because people are too stupid to use a microwave and the bottles are bad for the environment.

Like my buddy Charlie Brown says, "GOOD GRIEF!"
1katietx
      ID: 25520216
      Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 09:06
Culvers is in other states as well - and the burgers? OMG they are the best on the planet. Not to mention the shakes.

But you are right...it is 'death on a bun' - I haven't had one in 3 yrs. But I remember how tasty they are. ;-)

And yes, Austin has Culvers...but I'm staying away.
2Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 10:03
You're behind the curve, Boxman. Ultra-conservative Salt Lake City's liberal mayor was on top of this over 7 months ago.
3nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 10:17
Boxman Just a thought. If the big liberal governments (not
to say there aren't big so-called conservative governments) are
banning foods, why not start with the ones that are actually
unhealthy for you? Grow some balls and go after the peddlers of
1,000 calorie burgers like McDonald's, Burger King and the like.


You didn't read the article very carefully. SF isn't banning bottled
water. They are banning city workers from buying it with city
funds...that's all.

My guess is there aren't many city funds being used to buy
Burger King so you aren't really comparing apples to apples.

If a city worker wants to buy their own bottled water and bring it
to work, I don't see anything in the article you posted that
suggests they can't. Just as they can bring a Burger King lunch.

If the big liberal governments (not to say there aren't big
so-called conservative governments)


Glad you added that last caviate, the biggest government/
budgets/deficiets this country has ever seen took place the last
few years that we had an all Republican President, house and
senate. Fiscal responsibilty obviously wasn't a priority with these
Republicans...they know all about "Big Governement".



4Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 11:37
As Nerveclinic points out, no one is banning any food in San Francisco. Newsome is eliminating what he perceives to be government waste.

Further: why not start with the ones that are actually unhealthy for you?

Bottled water is sold in non-biodegradable plastic bottles. What happens to a vast number of those bottles after you and I finished with teh water inside of them? A very small percentage of it gets recycled - at a very inefficient cost (notably more than it takes to make the stuff from scratch). But the majority of the stuff gets tossed. Of that, most of it winds up in landfills, but not all of it. Are you familiar with The North Pacific Gyre Garbage Heap?A vast swath of the Pacific, twice the size of Texas, is full of a plastic stew that is entering the food chain.Think about that. Twice the size of Texas. Aside from the probably more obvious environmental impact caused from danger to certain species that could disrupt the food chain, the article notes:
But Moore soon learned that the big, tentacled balls of trash were only the most visible signs of the problem; others were far less obvious, and far more evil. Dragging a fine-meshed net known as a manta trawl, he discovered minuscule pieces of plastic, some barely visible to the eye, swirling like fish food throughout the water. He and his researchers parsed, measured, and sorted their samples and arrived at the following conclusion: By weight, this swath of sea contains six times as much plastic as it does plankton.

This statistic is grim—for marine animals, of course, but even more so for humans. The more invisible and ubiquitous the pollution, the more likely it will end up inside us. And there’s growing—and disturbing—proof that we’re ingesting plastic toxins constantly, and that even slight doses of these substances can severely disrupt gene activity. “Every one of us has this huge body burden,” Moore says. “You could take your serum to a lab now, and they’d find at least 100 industrial chemicals that weren’t around in 1950.” The fact that these toxins don’t cause violent and immediate reactions does not mean they’re benign: Scientists are just beginning to research the long-term ways in which the chemicals used to make plastic interact with our own biochemistry.

In simple terms, plastic is a petroleum-based mix of monomers that become polymers, to which additional chemicals are added for suppleness, inflammability, and other qualities. When it comes to these substances, even the syllables are scary. For instance, if you’re thinking that perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) isn’t something you want to sprinkle on your microwave popcorn, you’re right. Recently, the Science Advisory Board of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) upped its classification of PFOA to a likely carcinogen. Yet it’s a common ingredient in packaging that needs to be oil- and heat-resistant. So while there may be no PFOA in the popcorn itself, if PFOA is used to treat the bag, enough of it can leach into the popcorn oil when your butter deluxe meets your superheated microwave oven that a single serving spikes the amount of the chemical in your blood.
The article goes on to explain the myriad of problems that various kinds of microscopic plastic particles can cause in the bodies of humans and animals.

More:
Unfortunately, that promising-looking triangle of arrows that appears on products doesn’t always signify endless reuse; it merely identifies which type of plastic the item is made from. And of the seven different plastics in common use, only two of them—PET (labeled with #1 inside the triangle and used in soda bottles) and HDPE (labeled with #2 inside the triangle and used in milk jugs)—have much of an aftermarket. So no matter how virtuously you toss your chip bags and shampoo bottles into your blue bin, few of them will escape the landfill—only 3 to 5 percent of plastics are recycled in any way.

“There’s no legal way to recycle a milk container into another milk container without adding a new virgin layer of plastic,” Moore says, pointing out that, because plastic melts at low temperatures, it retains pollutants and the tainted residue of its former contents. Turn up the heat to sear these off, and some plastics release deadly vapors. So the reclaimed stuff is mostly used to make entirely different products, things that don’t go anywhere near our mouths, such as fleece jackets and carpeting. Therefore, unlike recycling glass, metal, or paper, recycling plastic doesn’t always result in less use of virgin material. It also doesn’t help that fresh-made plastic is far cheaper.
.............................................

“Except for the small amount that’s been incinerated—and it’s a very small amount—every bit of plastic ever made still exists,” Moore says, describing how the material’s molecular structure resists biodegradation. Instead, plastic crumbles into ever-tinier fragments as it’s exposed to sunlight and the elements. And none of these untold gazillions of fragments is disappearing anytime soon: Even when plastic is broken down to a single molecule, it remains too tough for biodegradation.

Truth is, no one knows how long it will take for plastic to biodegrade, or return to its carbon and hydrogen elements. We only invented the stuff 144 years ago, and science’s best guess is that its natural disappearance will take several more centuries. Meanwhile, every year, we churn out about 60 billion tons of it, much of which becomes disposable products meant only for a single use. Set aside the question of why we’re creating ketchup bottles and six-pack rings that last for half a millennium, and consider the implications of it: Plastic never really goes away.
How stupid Mayor Newsome must be for preferring that his city government find some small way to contribute less to this mess by not buying a product that is widely available practically for free anyway!

Boxman, while you seem to be breaking away from your neoconservative tendencies regarding foreign policy arguments, you still fail to recognize a truly conservative measure when you hear about it. They are reducing wasteful government spending. They save tax dollars by eliminating the purchase of bottled water, in the process choosing to depend more on local natural resources instead. The measure also saves tax money by reducing garbage that must be removed and buried by a government agency in landfill space that must be purchased by the government. Further, it serves as a good example for the people to follow.

Moreover you asked:
why not start with [banning foods] that are actually unhealthy for you?

Interestingly, in NYC, Mayor Mike Bloomberg has banned transfats (which are absolutely terrible for you) in city restaurants, forcing all levels of establishments from fast food chains like McDonalds to the most expensive French and American cuisine restaurants to alter their menus and recipies to comply to a new government ordance. This measure that you apparently advocate before you even knew it happened has some conservatives I respect very angry over the infringement on the right of businessses to provide goods and services they've been selling for decades or even over a century.

I do wish that before you question whether an entire city or its government is "too dumb" for this or that, that you'd consider the issure more fully before you launch one of your rightist kneejerk insults at traditionally leftists cities - which inevitably make you look more foolish in the process.

After a recent exchange here which you were involved in I am relctant to finish with the following but frankly its too obvious not to be said. Perhaps the next thread title in this forum could be, "Boxman: Too Dumb for Conservatism"?

Seriously, maybe it is time that you reassess your positions on various topics and decide whether they need tweeking to fit within the conservative umprella you insist you belong in or whether it might be time to take an introspective look and come around to realizing that the conservative tabard you wear so proudly doesn't fit quite as well as you'd like.
5Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 12:37
You didn't read the article very carefully. SF isn't banning bottled
water. They are banning city workers from buying it with city
funds...that's all.


Never said they were. You derived that. Not my problem.
6Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 12:53
How stupid Mayor Newsome must be for preferring that his city government find some small way to contribute less to this mess by not buying a product that is widely available practically for free anyway!

Water is practically free? Oh, I can just disregard the water bill for my house the next time it rears its head.
7Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 12:59
Never said they were.

Your very first line was: Liberal haven Seattle is now trying to get rid of microwave popcorn and the liberal capital of the country SF is now targeting bottled water. You continued: Just a thought. If the big liberal governments (not to say there aren't big so-called conservative governments) are banning foods, why not start with the ones that are actually unhealthy for you?

If you didn't falsely imply that SF was banning bottled water, than you didn't bother to offer any point at all for why San Francisco is "dumb" for this measure. So what in the world are you talking about?

As your buddy Charlie Brown says, "GOOD GRIEF!"
8Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 13:06
Water is practically free?

Water in SF is not quite "practically free". Fair enough. Regardless tap water is far, farless expensive than bottled water. How about responding to my greater points rather than nitpicking at irrelevencies?
9Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 13:22
Boxman, you could have titled the thread so that a discussion about the pros and cons of the environmental degradation of the planet through non-biodegradable plastics could be discussed(there are pros?), but you chose a polarizing and accusative title meant only to marginalize the political leanings of a great American city.

Self-proclaimed conservatives like yourself are eager to brand those who oppose this nation's military policies that include pre-emptive war and regime change within soveriegn nations as America Haters.

In return, it seems only fair to label those of you who oppose any type of enviromental activism as Planet Haters.

The, perhaps, we can start a thread which explores the definition of dumb.
10Seattle Zen
      ID: 46315247
      Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 13:31
Excellent post 4, MITH. Many of your posts have been the saving grace of these boards of late.

As for Boxman, all that poking fun at "big" and "liberal" and "dumb" accomplishes is lower the quality of discussion to AM talk radio. When your childish teases are extremely off point, you look like a fool.

MITH is right, everyone should agree with Mayor Newsom's decree. Don't spend government money on plastic water bottles when you can simply fill your glass from the tap. Go grab your water bill and a calculator and figure out how much that glass of water cost and compare it to a bottle from a store. You've got an MBA, even you can see the savings.
11 nyscof
      ID: 53592417
      Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 18:09
This is good. Now the government officials and agencies who legislate fluoride into the water supply will be forced to drink it themselves.

Fluoride is added to San Francisco’s water supply, not to purify it, but to prevent tooth decay in tap water drinkers. Modern science shows it is ineffective, harmful to health and a waste of tax dollars.

Fluoride chemicals are silicofluorides - waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry. They are dumped unpurified into the water supply. They are allowed to have trace amounts of lead, arsenic, mercury and other contaminnts.

Studies link silicofluorides to children’s higher blood lead levels which, in turn, are linked to higher rates of tooth decay.

The statistics prove that tooth decay is on the rise along with fluoride over dose symptoms - dental fluorosis

So drink up San Francisco government officials and make sure your kids do, too. If you are buying bottled water at home to protect your family, you should be protecting all San Franciscans by ending water fluoridation.



For more info: http://www.FluorideAction.Net
12bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Sun, Jun 24, 2007, 18:24
LOL - and here I thought the fears regargding evil doers surreptitiously poisoning our water with flouride went out of style in the 50s along with the John Birch Society.
13nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Mon, Jun 25, 2007, 03:39


Boxman You didn't read the article very carefully. SF isn't
banning bottled water. They are banning city workers from
buying it with city funds...that's all.

Never said they were. You derived that. Not my problem.


I know MITH already responded to this but what does this mean
then???

Just a thought. If the big liberal governments (not to say
there aren't big so-called conservative governments)are
banning foods,
why not start with the ones that are
actually unhealthy for you?


I know we aren't supposed to get personal when we debate but
what a dumbass. You don't even know what you are writing.

You've managed to insult with the headlines of two of your
recent posts two of the finest cities in the country.

I've lived in both cities, They make much of the rest of the
country look like trailor parks.

Both Seattle and San Francisco have one of the highest education
rates in the country.

I will put both cities up against anywhere else in the USA in
terms of quality of life (Subtracting cost of living).

The reason it costs so much to live there is because people
recognize heaven on earth when they see it and they are willing
to pay for it.

It's funny in a post where you accuse a city of being dumb...you
end up looking like the dumbass.

You really should be a little mor careful how you state your case,
I think you are in over your head.



14Wilmer McLean
      ID: 46528303
      Sat, Jun 30, 2007, 16:06
Giant microwave turns plastic back to oil

26 June 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Catherine Brahic

A US company is taking plastics recycling to another level – turning them back into the oil they were made from, and gas.

All that is needed, claims Global Resource Corporation (GRC), is a finely tuned microwave and – hey presto! – a mix of materials that were made from oil can be reduced back to oil and combustible gas (and a few leftovers).

Key to GRC’s process is a machine that uses 1200 different frequencies within the microwave range, which act on specific hydrocarbon materials. As the material is zapped at the appropriate wavelength, part of the hydrocarbons that make up the plastic and rubber in the material are broken down into diesel oil and combustible gas.

GRC's machine is called the Hawk-10. Its smaller incarnations look just like an industrial microwave with bits of machinery attached to it. Larger versions resemble a concrete mixer.

"Anything that has a hydrocarbon base will be affected by our process," says Jerry Meddick, director of business development at GRC, based in New Jersey. "We release those hydrocarbon molecules from the material and it then becomes gas and oil."

Whatever does not have a hydrocarbon base is left behind, minus any water it contained as this gets evaporated in the microwave.

Simplified recycling

"Take a piece of copper wiring," says Meddick. "It is encased in plastic – a kind of hydrocarbon material. We release all the hydrocarbons, which strips the casing off the wire." Not only does the process produce fuel in the form of oil and gas, it also makes it easier to extract the copper wire for recycling.

Similarly, running 9.1 kilograms of ground-up tyres through the Hawk-10 produces 4.54 litres of diesel oil, 1.42 cubic metres of combustible gas, 1 kg of steel and 3.40 kg of carbon black, Meddick says.

Watch a video of tyre powder being reduced by the Hawk-10.

Less landfill

Gershow Recycling, a scrap metal company based in New York, US, has just said it will be the first to buy a Hawk-10. Gershow collects metal products, shreds them and turns them into usable pure metals. Most of its scrap comes from old cars, but for every ton of steel that the company recovers, between 226 kg and 318 kg of "autofluff" is produced.

Autofluff is the stuff that is left over after a car has been shredded and the steel extracted. It contains plastics, rubber, wood, paper, fabrics, glass, sand, dirt, and various bits of metal. GRC says its Hawk-10 can extract enough oil and gas from the left-over fluff to run the Hawk-10 itself and a number of other machines used by Gershow.

Because it makes extracting reusable metal more efficient and evaporates water from autofluff, the Hawk-10 should also reduce the amount of end material that needs to be deposited in landfill sites.
15Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, Jun 30, 2007, 16:45
Think they can build one twice the size of Texas... that floats?

Seriously, if this thing really works it will be one of the most important inventions developed in the 21st century.
16Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Sun, Jul 01, 2007, 21:20
Lexington to go "trash free" by 2020
17Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Sun, Jul 01, 2007, 21:22
oopps.... meant to add

Before anyone can start calling the plan crazy, Feese suggests they look up the road at the Toyota plant in Georgetown.

It's been "zero landfill" since 2004. That took two years and plenty of training, says Toyota environmental specialist Chris Holbrook.

The process started in 2002 at the mandate of then-Toyota Motor Corporation President Fujio Cho, who said he wanted all Toyota facilities to be leaders in the environmental industry.

First, the Toyota plant had to identify what was being thrown out and find places that it could be sold or reused, instead of going to a landfill. Metals, for example, are easy to recycle, Holbrook said. Plastics require much more segregation because there are so many different kinds.

The cafeteria switched from styrofoam to paper products, which can be recycled. And all the leftover food is now put into industrial underground composters that generate enough composted soil to sustain a 20-acre vegetable garden. Six of those acres are used to grow vegetables that are used in the cafeteria and given away to local food banks, said Hesterburg. The other 14 acres are used to grow corn as a source of nitrogen in the composter to speed the process.

(An industrial composter is underground, which means meat products can be put into it, unlike backyard composting. In backyards, meat tends to smell bad and attract animals.)

Although some construction waste still goes to landfills, Toyota stopped sending 16,000 tons of trash from the manufacturing plant to landfills every year, said Toyota spokesman Rick Hesterburg.

18Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jul 01, 2007, 21:24
Kudos to Lexington and Toyota.
19Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, Jul 06, 2007, 22:17
A SF 4th of July (from zombie time)
20Perm Dude
      ID: 1660610
      Fri, Jul 06, 2007, 22:24
That guy is awesome. I posted something on DPS about him a long time ago. It's like having a mole.
21Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, Jul 06, 2007, 22:34
He's very funny
22Seattle Zen
      ID: 46315247
      Sat, Jul 07, 2007, 12:03
So many awesome posters...



I certainly do not agree with his final observation, though.

I thought back to the attendance at the art show and the Guantanamo protest and I realized -- I had it all wrong. This city really is patriotic!

I certainly hope he doesn't equate either support of the torture at Gitmo or indifference to the torture as patriotic. That would be more like idiotic.
23Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, May 28, 2008, 17:05
Teenager isolates microbe that biodegrades plastic bags
24Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Tue, Mar 16, 2010, 09:15
National Geographic: The Atlantic Ocean has a huge floating garbage patch too.
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message:

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days11
Last 30 days44
Since Mar 1, 20071478725