Puckdropper wrote:
"dadiOH" wrote in news:P_7Ug.13794$3T2.8095
@trnddc06:


Even if true, what difference would it make? Once melted and
impurities are removed, old iron is no different from new iron. Ditto
plastics.



Chemically, perhaps. Physically, no. Woodworkers are "physicalists" in
that we don't care so much about the chemical changes in our woods and
metals as the physical ones.
....

That generalization is as over-generalized as the previous one (which
also caught my eye)...

It all depends on how they're reprocessed and into what--in general
plastics can't be reprocessed (economically) back into the same or
similar plastics as the were originally as they are complex
hydrocarbons that tend to break down.

Metals, otoh, while in general much simpler to return to a similar
state, are also subject to the economic constraints of reprocessing in
which they tend to be mixed up into various combinations from the
collection process, but carbon steels can and are returned to forms
that are essentially indistinguishable for practical purposes of
functional strength, etc.

I would attribute any differences in quality of an end product not to
reprocessing per se, but to a lessening of product specifications in
response to target market niche. So, while there may be some truth in
the original claim (which I don't know, but tend to doubt as stated),
the net effect isn't so much owing directly to recycling but a
combination of decisions of which recycled materials are at best only a
part.

How's that for obfuscation?