In message , John Williamson
writes
tim..... wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"tim....." wrote:

My biggest bugbear here is "window envelopes". If they can't be
recycled (as many LA's claim) then marketing companies shouldn't be
allowed to use them - simples. And I bet that they'd find a way of
making then recyclable pretty damned quickly if that were the rule.

What makes you think it's only marketing companies that use window
envelopes? And WTF is a "marketing company" anyway?
Someone who sends out direct marketing garbage letters

And if they can't use window envelopes, what should they use
instead? What should, say, a small theatre company use when sending
a letter to its mailing list?
sticky labels :-)

On the letter, visible through the window... ;-)

Seriously, though, a lot of small organisations don't have the
resources to individually address each envelope to match the
"personalised" letter inside.

Right but they don't actually need clear plastic for the window do they?


--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

I suspect, but don;t know for sure, that food waster composters have to be
enclosed and temperature monitored. An unenclosed pile like I saw obviously
gets bloody hot inside, but the surface will still be cool (not hot enough
to kill pathogens in the food waste). If it were enclosed in a covered
concrete bunker or something, it would probably get really hot all the way
through.


This is apparantly where our food waste goes.

http://www.shepway.gov.uk/content/view/201199/4388/


All enclosed, and carefull monitored as you suggest.

Darren

On 24/08/2013 18:54, Tim Lamb wrote:

Right but they don't actually need clear plastic for the window do they?

Go back to glassine?

--
Rod

In message , polygonum
writes
On 24/08/2013 18:54, Tim Lamb wrote:

Right but they don't actually need clear plastic for the window do they?

Go back to glassine?

I was thinking of fresh air:-)


--
Tim Lamb

On 24/08/2013 20:20, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , polygonum
writes
On 24/08/2013 18:54, Tim Lamb wrote:

Right but they don't actually need clear plastic for the window do they?

Go back to glassine?

I was thinking of fresh air:-)


I was also thinking about the various ways in which you can produce
mailable items by folding and gluing. Still allows a single sheet to
contain both the communication and the name/address.

--
Rod

On Saturday 24 August 2013 18:59 D.M.Chapman wrote in uk.d-i-y:

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

I suspect, but don;t know for sure, that food waster composters have to be
enclosed and temperature monitored. An unenclosed pile like I saw
obviously gets bloody hot inside, but the surface will still be cool (not
hot enough to kill pathogens in the food waste). If it were enclosed in a
covered concrete bunker or something, it would probably get really hot all
the way through.


This is apparantly where our food waste goes.

http://www.shepway.gov.uk/content/view/201199/4388/


All enclosed, and carefull monitored as you suggest.

Darren

That is interesting...
--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 24/08/2013 16:53, Steve Firth wrote:
Huge wrote:

It all goes for cullet, mostly to make glassfibre insulation.

Not quite true. The A1M from Wakefield to the A19 was rebuilt using lots of
"recycled" glass. It makes excellent ballast. Significant quantities of
cullet are used as construction materials where it can replace sharp sand.


None of which requires the glass to be separated by colour.

--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 24/08/2013 13:16, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/08/2013 11:28, polygonum wrote:


DNA testing?

That would only tell them that there was horse meat in them.


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 24/08/2013 10:27, tim..... wrote:

My biggest bugbear here is "window envelopes". If they can't be
recycled (as many LA's claim) then marketing companies shouldn't be
allowed to use them - simples. And I bet that they'd find a way of
making then recyclable pretty damned quickly if that were the rule.


I think you may be missing a point. If it was made illegal to send or
post unsolicited junk mail or leaflets the average household would have
a couple of tons per annum less rubbish in the first place.






--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

In message , alan
writes
On 24/08/2013 10:27, tim..... wrote:

My biggest bugbear here is "window envelopes". If they can't be
recycled (as many LA's claim) then marketing companies shouldn't be
allowed to use them - simples. And I bet that they'd find a way of
making then recyclable pretty damned quickly if that were the rule.


I think you may be missing a point. If it was made illegal to send or
post unsolicited junk mail or leaflets the average household would have
a couple of tons per annum less rubbish in the first place.

Hmm.. presumably our leaders have come to the conclusion that the
overall *good* outweighs the *bad*.

Junk mail industry direct employment, increased trade, taxation revenue
against individual inconvenience/cost and landfill issues.
--
Tim Lamb

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 24/08/2013 10:27, tim..... wrote:

My biggest bugbear here is "window envelopes". If they can't be
recycled (as many LA's claim) then marketing companies shouldn't be
allowed to use them - simples. And I bet that they'd find a way of
making then recyclable pretty damned quickly if that were the rule.


I think you may be missing a point. If it was made illegal to send or
post unsolicited junk mail or leaflets the average household would have a
couple of tons per annum less rubbish in the first place.

and royal mail would go bust :-(

tim

On 25/08/2013 08:58, tim..... wrote:

"alan" wrote in message
...
On 24/08/2013 10:27, tim..... wrote:

My biggest bugbear here is "window envelopes". If they can't be
recycled (as many LA's claim) then marketing companies shouldn't be
allowed to use them - simples. And I bet that they'd find a way of
making then recyclable pretty damned quickly if that were the rule.


I think you may be missing a point. If it was made illegal to send or
post unsolicited junk mail or leaflets the average household would
have a couple of tons per annum less rubbish in the first place.

and royal mail would go bust :-(

tim


All the council junk mail to us is delivered "by hand". So cutting that
out would not affect RM.

--
Rod

On 25/08/2013 08:56, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , alan
writes
On 24/08/2013 10:27, tim..... wrote:

My biggest bugbear here is "window envelopes". If they can't be
recycled (as many LA's claim) then marketing companies shouldn't be
allowed to use them - simples. And I bet that they'd find a way of
making then recyclable pretty damned quickly if that were the rule.


I think you may be missing a point. If it was made illegal to send or
post unsolicited junk mail or leaflets the average household would
have a couple of tons per annum less rubbish in the first place.

Hmm.. presumably our leaders have come to the conclusion that the
overall *good* outweighs the *bad*.

Junk mail industry direct employment, increased trade, taxation revenue
against individual inconvenience/cost and landfill issues.

We've never quite grasped the concept of productive employment. As long
as everyone's busy going round in circles, the govt is happy.

On 25/08/2013 11:08, Huge wrote:
On 2013-08-24, alan wrote:
On 24/08/2013 10:27, tim..... wrote:

My biggest bugbear here is "window envelopes". If they can't be
recycled (as many LA's claim) then marketing companies shouldn't be
allowed to use them - simples. And I bet that they'd find a way of
making then recyclable pretty damned quickly if that were the rule.


I think you may be missing a point. If it was made illegal to send or
post unsolicited junk mail or leaflets the average household would have
a couple of tons per annum less rubbish in the first place.

The cost of a postage stamp would go up to £2.50.


We end up in the situation in which company A sends out junk, so their
competitor, company B also starts to do so. Then C, D, and so on.

If none of them did so, then instead of all those companies paying not
only for the distribution but for the origination and printing as well,
they would save a fortune. So maybe they could all reduce their prices
instead?

If a stamp would indeed go up to £2.50, then the amount currently being
paid by the junk mailers to the PO (and others) must be astronomic.

--
Rod

On 24/08/2013 20:47, alan wrote:
On 24/08/2013 16:53, Steve Firth wrote:
Huge wrote:

It all goes for cullet, mostly to make glassfibre insulation.

Not quite true. The A1M from Wakefield to the A19 was rebuilt using
lots of
"recycled" glass. It makes excellent ballast. Significant quantities of
cullet are used as construction materials where it can replace sharp
sand.


None of which requires the glass to be separated by colour.

Colour is important when making new glass. The raw materials for glass
melt better if a quantity of recycled glass is mixed with them.

Colin Bignell

In message , Huge
writes

I think you may be missing a point. If it was made illegal to send or
post unsolicited junk mail or leaflets the average household would have
a couple of tons per annum less rubbish in the first place.

Hmm.. presumably our leaders have come to the conclusion that the
overall *good* outweighs the *bad*.

Although their definitions of "good" and "bad" doubtless differ dramatically
from yours and mine.

Junk mail industry direct employment, increased trade, taxation revenue
against individual inconvenience/cost

They don't give a toss about individual inconvenience/cost.

and landfill issues.

Stretching the thread a bit.. they could also concern themselves about
cold calling..



--
Tim Lamb

The Other Mike wrote in
:

On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 08:54:15 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

We have three bins in our kitchen, one for food scraps, one for
recycling (don't have to sort it, everything goes in one bag), and a
third for 'general waste'.



The City Council of Derby has decided that the population of a couple of
areas are too thick, too high on drugs, or too disengaged to bother with
putting stuff into the right bins that they have gone back to weekly
collections from one black bin.

On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:41:01 +0100, Nightjar
wrote:

Mixed recycling results in a significantly larger
volume of materials being recycled. Many councils argue that the
resulting higher income more than covers the additional cost of sorting it.

Wasn't there a problem with the paper becoming contaminated with
broken glass, meaning the pulpers paid less for paper collected this
way.

I'm fascinated by technology to do this, magnetic separation for steel
cans, eddy current separators for non ferrous and air classifiers for
the paper but how are plastics sorted?

How much is actually manually done on a stinking pick line as recently
shown on one of the undercover boss tv programmes?

AJH

On 24/08/2013 10:12, John Williamson wrote:
tim..... wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:
On 2013-08-23, John Williamson wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2013-08-23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
I'd send a bill to your council for the time you spend sorting
your rubbish,
a task you already pay them for.
Rubbish. If you want them to do it, they'll have to charge more.
If I have an empty bottle or plastic drinks bottle in my mitt,
how hard is it to put it in the right container?
Harder than putting it in the single bin my council provide. Plus the
storage space. Sorting waste should be done by your council.

I reckon I must spend all of a minute extra per week making sure
that stuff goes into the right bin of the four supplied.

You've spent longer than that (much longer) arguing about it.

If waste is sorted into separate bins as it's generated, it needs
much less sorting than it would if it were all put into one bin for
later sorting.

Tell someone who cares.

The materials gained by sorting at source are also better suited to
recycling than stuff obtained by sorting the general waste stream,

Except, as has so ably been demonstrated in this thread, you cannot
rely
on householders to get it right.

saving everybody except the initial thrower-away time, money and
energy.

I *am* the "initial thrower-away" and I don't GAS about the rest of
it. I
pay someone to deal with my waste. Let them deal with it. I'll
cheerfully
sort my rubbish at my consultancy rate.


While expecting the council to sort it at the legal minimum wage.

minimum wage jobs are better than no jobs

I *was* pointing out the hypocricy of the poster wanting to charge for
his few seconds of time sorting rubbish at source at his consultancy
rate, so setting what he considers a fair price for the job, while being

I think you will find he was specifying what he felt was a fair price
for his time, not a fair price for the job.

perfectly happy for someone else to spend much more time sorting it
later (A much less pleasant job) for the legal minimum wage.

May be more cost effective on any number of levels.

(most of the sorting can be done automatically anyway)



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 24/08/2013 16:53, Steve Firth wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2013-08-23, alan wrote:

Until recently people around my way sorted glass by colour into large
road side bins. During collection each bin was picked up in turn and
emptied into the single compartment on the back of the lorry. Possibly
with no market for the old glass it went to landfill.

It all goes for cullet, mostly to make glassfibre insulation.

Not quite true. The A1M from Wakefield to the A19 was rebuilt using lots of
"recycled" glass. It makes excellent ballast. Significant quantities of
cullet are used as construction materials where it can replace sharp sand.

Lots gets exported to China for the same reason... goods come in, ship
needs ballast for the return trip, and glass can be used there for road
building.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 25/08/2013 11:50, Huge wrote:
On 2013-08-25, Nightjar wrote:
On 24/08/2013 20:47, alan wrote:
On 24/08/2013 16:53, Steve Firth wrote:
Huge wrote:

It all goes for cullet, mostly to make glassfibre insulation.

Not quite true. The A1M from Wakefield to the A19 was rebuilt using
lots of
"recycled" glass. It makes excellent ballast. Significant quantities of
cullet are used as construction materials where it can replace sharp
sand.


None of which requires the glass to be separated by colour.

Colour is important when making new glass. The raw materials for glass
melt better if a quantity of recycled glass is mixed with them.

I have read (several times) that because the general public cannot be trusted
to properly separate glass by colour, that recycled glass is not used for
any purpose where its colour matters, and that it all goes for glass-fibre
insulation and road surfaces.

I am going by the statment made by an expert from Pilkington Glass,
describing the manufacture of float glass for the programme Unbuilt
Britain a couple of weeks ago, that recycled glass was essential to get
the raw materials to melt properly. Of course, as a glass manufacturer,
they may well be able to source all the recycled glass they need from
manufacturing waste.

Colin Bignell

On Sunday, August 25, 2013 2:06:36 PM UTC+1, DerbyBorn wrote:
The City Council of Derby has decided that the population of a couple of
areas are too thick, too high on drugs, or too disengaged to bother with
putting stuff into the right bins that they have gone back to weekly
collections from one black bin.

I've moved recently and my new building only has one monsterbin for everything. I may have stepped down the social ladder but it's so handy having one bin that is big enough to take whole storage-heaters and buckets of concrete.

Owain

wrote in
:

On Sunday, August 25, 2013 2:06:36 PM UTC+1, DerbyBorn wrote:
The City Council of Derby has decided that the population of a couple
of areas are too thick, too high on drugs, or too disengaged to
bother with putting stuff into the right bins that they have gone
back to weekly collections from one black bin.

I've moved recently and my new building only has one monsterbin for
everything. I may have stepped down the social ladder but it's so
handy having one bin that is big enough to take whole storage-heaters
and buckets of concrete.

Owain



So you miss the fun of stripping things down to fit? I have enjoyed getting
a dishwasher and a car tailgate into a normal sized bin.

On 24/08/2013 10:12, John Williamson wrote:
tim..... wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:
On 2013-08-23, John Williamson wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2013-08-23, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
I'd send a bill to your council for the time you spend sorting
your rubbish,
a task you already pay them for.
Rubbish. If you want them to do it, they'll have to charge more.
If I have an empty bottle or plastic drinks bottle in my mitt,
how hard is it to put it in the right container?
Harder than putting it in the single bin my council provide. Plus the
storage space. Sorting waste should be done by your council.

I reckon I must spend all of a minute extra per week making sure
that stuff goes into the right bin of the four supplied.

You've spent longer than that (much longer) arguing about it.

If waste is sorted into separate bins as it's generated, it needs
much less sorting than it would if it were all put into one bin for
later sorting.

Tell someone who cares.

The materials gained by sorting at source are also better suited to
recycling than stuff obtained by sorting the general waste stream,

Except, as has so ably been demonstrated in this thread, you cannot
rely
on householders to get it right.

saving everybody except the initial thrower-away time, money and
energy.

I *am* the "initial thrower-away" and I don't GAS about the rest of
it. I
pay someone to deal with my waste. Let them deal with it. I'll
cheerfully
sort my rubbish at my consultancy rate.


While expecting the council to sort it at the legal minimum wage.

minimum wage jobs are better than no jobs

I *was* pointing out the hypocricy of the poster wanting to charge for
his few seconds of time sorting rubbish at source at his consultancy
rate, so setting what he considers a fair price for the job, while being
perfectly happy for someone else to spend much more time sorting it
later (A much less pleasant job) for the legal minimum wage.

No, he's simply saying what his charge out rate is, nothing to do with
the rate for the job, just the rate for his time.

SteveW

On 24/08/2013 11:08, Tim Watts wrote:
On Saturday 24 August 2013 10:09 Scott M wrote in uk.d-i-y:

D.M.Chapman wrote:
In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:

The idea of sorting it all out and then having the council ship it off
to a landfill dump in a third world country is also antisocial.

Food waste goes to Maidstone (so 40mins or so away)

Round here they take the food waste away and cook it up to 60C to
sterilise it. A more anti-green green measure I've yet to imagine[1].


[1] Unless, say, someone were to come up with a way of generating
electricity that consumed more energy in building the generator that it
would ever create.


The "cooking" is usually done in a natural composter. Compost can get this
hot in the right conditions - and the compost facilities that accept food
waster have to provide the "right conditions" (and presumably recorded
monitoring) rather than just lob it in a pile and turn it a couple of times
with a bulldozer.

I presume that's what our council use, as 3 months ago they specifically
changed the collections from green bin (garden waste) fortnightly, grey
bin (general waste) weekly to green bin (garden waste and food waste)
weekly, grey bin (general waste) fornightly. We also have black bin
(plastic and glass) and blue bin (paper and card) that have remained at
4 weekly.

SteveW

On Sunday, August 25, 2013 6:07:45 PM UTC+1, DerbyBorn wrote:
So you miss the fun of stripping things down to fit? I have enjoyed getting
a dishwasher and a car tailgate into a normal sized bin.

I still strip things down for Useful Bits.

Owain

On 25 Aug 2013 10:08:04 GMT
Huge wrote:

On 2013-08-24, alan wrote:
On 24/08/2013 16:53, Steve Firth wrote:
Huge wrote:

It all goes for cullet, mostly to make glassfibre insulation.

Not quite true. The A1M from Wakefield to the A19 was rebuilt
using lots of "recycled" glass. It makes excellent ballast.
Significant quantities of cullet are used as construction
materials where it can replace sharp sand.


None of which requires the glass to be separated by colour.

Oh, the separation by colour is pointless. It all goes in the same
lorry and get mixed up before it is used. I ignore the colour
nonsense at the bottle bank.



Our local bottle bank yesterday had three containers:
Clear Glass;
Green Glass;
Mixed Glass (which had clearly been Brown Glass beforehand).

--
Davey.

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 09:16:52 +0100, The Other Mike wrote:

I do not understand the bit you are questioning. Who is getting away
with what?

"Mine doesn't even provide me with a general waste bin for outside."

Ours don't, either.

Wheely bin (provided) for all recycling.
Bin bags (not provided) for non-recycling.

On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 15:53:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2013-08-23, alan wrote:

Until recently people around my way sorted glass by colour into large
road side bins. During collection each bin was picked up in turn and
emptied into the single compartment on the back of the lorry. Possibly
with no market for the old glass it went to landfill.

It all goes for cullet, mostly to make glassfibre insulation.

Not quite true. The A1M from Wakefield to the A19 was rebuilt using lots of
"recycled" glass.

Couple of points:

Wakefield is 10 miles west of the A1M
The A19 does not have a junction with the A1M

Maybe you mean the new three lane bits between the A1M/M62 junction and the
A1M/A168 junction?


--

The Other Mike wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 15:53:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2013-08-23, alan wrote:

Until recently people around my way sorted glass by colour into large
road side bins. During collection each bin was picked up in turn and
emptied into the single compartment on the back of the lorry. Possibly
with no market for the old glass it went to landfill.

It all goes for cullet, mostly to make glassfibre insulation.

Not quite true. The A1M from Wakefield to the A19 was rebuilt using lots of
"recycled" glass.

Couple of points:

Wakefield is 10 miles west of the A1M
The A19 does not have a junction with the A1M

Maybe you mean the new three lane bits between the A1M/M62 junction and the
A1M/A168 junction?

Sorry I was being bone idle. I was based at Wakefield at time this work was
bring done and I mean Ferrybridge (A1M/M62) to J49 A1M (A168). I forgot its
not the A19 until Thirsk. It just felt like one interminable road when I
did my five times a week backwards and forwards between Stockton and
Wakefield.

I did some of the telematics work for the junctions back then.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 24/08/2013 09:23, polygonum wrote:
On 24/08/2013 09:16, The Other Mike wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 09:05:03 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

I do not understand the bit you are questioning. Who is getting away
with what?

"Mine doesn't even provide me with a general waste bin for outside."


Must say, I am surprised that ours is going to supply such a caddy. They
supplied a kitchen food waste caddy several years ago and the usual way
these things seem to work is that they supply one and that is your lot.

However any replacement of any of the bins, for any reason, is
chargeable. So if the bin associated with the property disappeared, we
too would end up without one until we pay for a replacement. Perhaps
that is what happened? Or maybe it is like some properties in our area
which have no bins but do get plastic bags instead?

I've never lived anywhere that the LA supplies any sort of container for
general waste. They supply one for recycling, but we have to supply our
own bin bags. I choose to put mine out in a heavy duty plastic bin, to
keep it from being torn open by scavengers, but it is not required.

Colin Bignell

On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:32:34 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
snip
I've never lived anywhere that the LA supplies any sort of container for
general waste. They supply one for recycling, but we have to supply our
own bin bags. I choose to put mine out in a heavy duty plastic bin, to
keep it from being torn open by scavengers, but it is not required.

Back when I was younger and living with my parents it was the norm for you to buy your own (normally galvanised steel) dustbin(s) - but then recycling hadn't been heard of (for domestic waste, anyway). I think in my first house I had to buy my bin bags, but ever since then it's been the norm for the council to provide. (You're still paying for it, of course, just not so directly).
Currently I live in a road where half the houses have no front garden, and therefore the council have elected not to give us the wheelie bins that other roads have. They supply a limited number of bags each year, and in theory at least will only collect waste if it's in one of their bags. I believe you used to be able to buy extra bags, but they're now saying that's not possible, just recycle more - doesn't worry me as I never use my full allocation anyway.

Steve Firth wrote:
The Other Mike wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 15:53:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

Huge wrote:
On 2013-08-23, alan wrote:

Until recently people around my way sorted glass by colour into
large road side bins. During collection each bin was picked up
in turn and emptied into the single compartment on the back of
the lorry. Possibly with no market for the old glass it went to
landfill.

It all goes for cullet, mostly to make glassfibre insulation.

Not quite true. The A1M from Wakefield to the A19 was rebuilt using
lots of "recycled" glass.

Couple of points:

Wakefield is 10 miles west of the A1M
The A19 does not have a junction with the A1M

Maybe you mean the new three lane bits between the A1M/M62 junction
and the A1M/A168 junction?

Sorry I was being bone idle. I was based at Wakefield at time this
work was bring done and I mean Ferrybridge (A1M/M62) to J49 A1M
(A168). I forgot its not the A19 until Thirsk. It just felt like one
interminable road when I did my five times a week backwards and
forwards between Stockton and Wakefield.


The slag insert rude comment here was produced by the now closed
Pilkingtons Kirk Sandall glass works.

The internal walls of some of the houses in Kirk Sandall are also built out
of the same slag.

Those walls are designed to destroy SDS drill bits:-)


--
Adam