Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
608 messages in 12 discussions
Latest May-27 by ElDotardo
4995 messages in 112 discussions
Latest 4/29/21 by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Latest May-15 by CamGeary
Latest May-8 by ricardomath
5855 messages in 170 discussions
Latest May-15 by NISSY (NISSY2)
4866 messages in 206 discussions
Latest May-13 by ricardomath
Latest May-12 by NISSY (NISSY2)
Latest May-9 by 8645 (RedBV)
Latest May-8 by NISSY (NISSY2)
Latest May-8 by NISSY (NISSY2)
1987 messages in 89 discussions
Latest May-8 by PTG (anotherPTG)
Latest May-6 by ricardomath
Latest May-6 by ricardomath
17058 messages in 743 discussions
Latest May-6 by David Finkel(ish) (mahjong54)
Latest May-6 by CzoeMC
Latest May-3 by David Finkel(ish) (mahjong54)
Burning rubbish is being touted as a viable alternative to landfill for Victoria, under a waste-to-energy proposal put before the State Government.
The Andrews Government commissioned a series of public consultations on waste-to-energy technology after local councils took legal action against the expansion of Victoria's largest tip, at Ravenhall, last year.
The public consultation report urged the Government to support the creation of a $220 million waste-to-energy plant in Melbourne's western suburbs.
The technology involves burning rubbish to produce electricity, which could reduce the amount of waste going to landfill by around 90 per cent.
A report overseen by Labor Upper House MP Cesar Melhem found there was "broad support" for waste-to-energy technology over landfill.
The public consultation report found residents were concerned about how pollution from the proposed plants would be managed.
The incineration process produces fly ash containing toxic metals, which must be disposed of through hazardous waste landfill.
Around 3 tonnes of fly ash is produced for every 100 tonnes of rubbish burnt.
Standards around pollution control on waste-to-energy plants have improved in recent years, according to Deakin University's hazardous materials lecturer Trevor Thornton.
"Incinerators haven't had a good reputation or good name over the years because going back they were pretty dirty, not monitored — pollution control devices weren't great," he said.
"But nowadays, the controls on them and the way of managing the fly ash —where it gets disposed of, how it's managed — is a lot more sophisticated than it was.
"Certainly agencies such as the EPA have got fairly strict controls on how they are managed and where they can be disposed of."
The report included a proposed timeline to set up the state's first waste-to-energy plant within the next eight years.
Is burning garbage better or worse than burning coal?
A diver who filmed a huge "slick" of plastic floating in clear waters at a popular dive spot in Indonesia said he has "never seen anything like this scale" of ocean pollution before.
In a video uploaded to social media, diver Rich Horner is seen swimming through masses of floating plastic garbage at a dive spot usually frequented by manta rays which come to get cleaned.
Although the dive site lies off the coast of Nusa Penida — a small island with low population — there is a stretch of only 20 kilometres of water separating Nusa Penida from the island of Bali and its capital Denpasar.
"Plastic straws, plastic baskets, plastic bags, more plastic bags, plastic, plastic, so much plastic!" Mr Horner wrote on Facebook.
"Surprise, surprise there weren't many mantas there at the cleaning station today. They mostly decided not to bother."
Mr Horner said the level of plastic at that site varied throughout the year, and there was no plastic visible during the dry season but random clouds and slicks appear during the wet season.
He said this trash in the footage had cleared by the next day.
A new study by researchers from Australia, Italy and the US have found tiny plastic particles are a particular threat to "filter-feeding" animals like the manta rays near Bali, which can swallow up to 90 pieces every hour.
Murdoch University lead researcher Elitza Germanov said microplastics — particles smaller than five millimetres long — contain toxic chemicals that, if ingested, could alter biological processes in the animals, such as growth, development and reproduction.
It's easy to blame the Balinese, but I think the tourists have a lot to answer for.
Krill may be at the bottom of the food chain, but they are proving to be a secret weapon in the war against ocean plastics, one poo at a time.
The tiny crustaceans are ingesting micro-plastics unknowingly, and breaking them down into much smaller nano-plastics through their digestive system, research has found.
The study, published in Nature Communications, has formed part of the PhD research of Dr Amanda Dawson from Griffith University.
Dr Dawson said she was "extremely surprised" by the results.
"It took me a long time to believe my results actually, I went back and re-tested over again," she said.
"It was pretty mind-blowing when we found out krill could break up plastics into tiny pieces.
"The most significant thing for me is that we fed the krill plastics that are brand new, but the reality is micro-plastics in the environment are already degraded, so if krill can grind up brand new plastics what can they be doing with old plastics?"
However, Dr Dawson said it may be too early to thank the krill for their environmental work, as more studies were needed.
The experiment was conducted at the Australian Antarctic Division's (AAD) krill aquarium in Hobart.
Krill biologist Rob King said krill were able to eat creatures their own size, so it was understandable that they were ingesting micro-plastics — which are bits of plastics under 5 millimetres.
There's up to 500 million tonnes of krill in the Southern Ocean, with each creature filtering 86 litres of sea water a day.
"There's just so much krill in the Southern Ocean, every day billions of tonnes of Antarctic sea water is filtered effectively by the krill population," he said.
"That's an enormous filter breaking these plastics down."
Mr King said all plastics break down in the ocean eventually, but the krill were accelerating the process.
Leave it to the little guy to clean up the big guys' mess.
In the Atlantic is an area known as the Sargasso Sea. It is another concentration of floating junk.
I've long thought it might be a useful idea to convert surplus Navy LSTs or perhaps whaling ships so they can move through such floating disasters and scoop up the plastics. Perhaps the plastics could be melted on board the ship, cast into blocks, and stowed for return to land for further processing.
No, I haven't even tried to figure out the cost of such a project or whether specialty ships would be needed for the task, at the moment it's just a pie-in-the-sky fantasy. But perhaps it really needs to be seriously evaluated for practicality.
Is the Sargasso one of those areas of dead calm?
I agree that a fleet of trawlers could do this. I mean commercial fishing trawlers should just do it. It is in their best interest to have plenty of fish in the sea.
Even just one joint venture every six months is better than nothing.
Perhaps the EPA could subsidise them?
It's a gyre, and things from bottles to derelict ships have been found there. But I doubt the American EPA would be interested - - until the last election they were more into creating problems than actually fixing them, and now they're too much in flux to do much of anything so far-sighted. It's something that actually needs to be addressed by an international coalition - - I'd hope one where it's agreed that the nations participating would be required to keep whatever debris they collected, and properly recycle it. Everything from Styrofoam blocks to soft-drink cans to floating bottles to sea containers to abandoned ships. Pie-in-the-sky? Probably, but the job needs to be done on an ongoing basis.
Actually, it would not surprise me if the commercial industry took over the problem.
They seem to be acting on the big issues instead of waiting for politicians to pull their finger out.
If a commercial enterprise could figure out a way to make money on the operation, I suspect we'd already see such activities. But at present I don't think anyone sees a profit from the effort. One would have to amortize the vessels, pay the crews, do the maintenance, pay the various kinds of insurance - - - then process the retrieved material that nobody thought worth the effort to put in the trash to begin with.
Please pardon me if I doubt this could be a profit-making venture!
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do the job.
The profit comes in saving the industry.
Think of it as an investment in the future.
Spending this money on a big cleanup once a year ensures more fish will be there next year, and the next, and the next.
Also, the fish will be of higher quality, and not full of plastic.
There is profit, just not immediate.
That's why I think it might be necessary to get international governmental cooperation and sponsorship for any such clean-up proposal.
Please note that I favor a genuine clean-up effort. I'm just not confident there are enough people willing and able to fund such an operation, which will be very large, for a considerable time will be continuous, and the benefits of which might not be immediately apparent. How to get through to the ordinary person that such an effort would be in everyone's best interest - especially if done in conjunction with efforts to curtail further plastic trash dumping into rivers and oceans - is something I can't figure out at this time.
But I do hope someone with the resources to do such an ongoing clean-up will step forward and take on the job!