On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 22:38:26 +0100, Andrew wrote:

On 12/06/2016 15:18, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Several messages both on Usenet and from people I know seem to suggest that
most recycling or waste sites run by councils won't take plasterboard,
saying its a hazard. Excuse me, but my ceilings are made of the stuff, if it
was in any way dangerous, we surely should have figured this out by now!
Maybe its just hazardous to the machinery that crunches everything up....
Brian

It reacts with something in the soil and generates H2S :-

Although that's toxic, it's not as destructive as HS2!
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 22:46:59 +0100, Andrew wrote:

On 13/06/2016 00:20, James Wilkinson wrote:

No, I'm just taking the easy option. You spend time and money doing
things "properly" if you want, you gullible fool.

I'm surprised a selfish **** like you even bothers to use a wheelie
bin or skip. Surely your type just dumps it at a National Trust
carpark ?.

I sort the recycling into the correct bins because it's easy to do. But I'm not going to do something that takes a lot of my time or money.

My neighbour has the same beligerant brain that you have. He fills
his blue recycling bin (should be for plastic, cans and paper) with
any old trade waste crap that is a by product of his car-repair
activities. Only the top 12 inches is proper recycled stuff.

Last week he dismantled an asbestos roofed shed for a friend, with
a chain saw, then took the mixed treated timber and (hidden) asbestos
to the local civic recycling site and chucked it all into the skip
intended for clean timber.

He's only trying to save money. If the government wants things recycled or disposed of correctly, they shouldn't charge us for it. Charging people for things makes them avoid it.

--
A man and his wife are ****ing.
Fifteen minutes has passed, 30 minutes, then 45 minutes.
Sweat is pouring off both of them.
The wife finally looks up and says, "What's the matter darling, can't you think of anyone else either?"

On 6/12/2016 11:37 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 6/12/2016 7:52 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/06/16 15:18, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Several messages both on Usenet and from people I know seem to suggest
that
most recycling or waste sites run by councils won't take plasterboard,
saying its a hazard. Excuse me, but my ceilings are made of the stuff,
if it
was in any way dangerous, we surely should have figured this out by
now!
Maybe its just hazardous to the machinery that crunches everything
up....
Brian


The principle reason is (apparently) it reacts with certain food wastes
to produce hydrogen sulphide (aka stink bombs) - however, the gas is
toxic in sufficient concentrations.

Don't dispute that H2S might be the argument, but I'm not sure of the
logic. Yes, it's toxic and the problem, indoors, is that you smell it
very easily at a safe concentration but then the nose gets saturated
(or something), and you don't smell it any more, and you die. But
certainly until the 1960's every decent school chemistry lab had a
Kipps Apparatus (and had done for 100 years) and I don't recall
hearing of any fatalities.

There have been a few with ships and sewer facilities in ships etc.


Oh I could well believe that, those are real confined spaces. My point
is that H2S slowly percolating to the surface of a landfill site is just
a non-issue.

On 16/06/2016 22:54, James Wilkinson wrote:

He's only trying to save money. If the government wants things recycled
or disposed of correctly, they shouldn't charge us for it. Charging
people for things makes them avoid it.

So should I pay for YOUR waste to be recycled? If so, why?

The nearest to a sensible approach appears to be with electrical goods
where the cost of recycling is directly borne by the industry which
makes the goods. Obviously, they in their turn have already charged the
purchaser when the goods were first purchased.

[I have no idea how well the scheme works behind the scenes. What
happens if a major manufacturer goes bust and is no longer a source of
funds? At the recycling centre, it seems just fine.]

--
Rod

On 16/06/2016 23:16, newshound wrote:
On 6/12/2016 11:37 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 6/12/2016 7:52 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
On 12/06/16 15:18, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Several messages both on Usenet and from people I know seem to suggest
that
most recycling or waste sites run by councils won't take plasterboard,
saying its a hazard. Excuse me, but my ceilings are made of the stuff,
if it
was in any way dangerous, we surely should have figured this out by
now!
Maybe its just hazardous to the machinery that crunches everything
up....
Brian


The principle reason is (apparently) it reacts with certain food wastes
to produce hydrogen sulphide (aka stink bombs) - however, the gas is
toxic in sufficient concentrations.

Don't dispute that H2S might be the argument, but I'm not sure of the
logic. Yes, it's toxic and the problem, indoors, is that you smell it
very easily at a safe concentration but then the nose gets saturated
(or something), and you don't smell it any more, and you die. But
certainly until the 1960's every decent school chemistry lab had a
Kipps Apparatus (and had done for 100 years) and I don't recall
hearing of any fatalities.

There have been a few with ships and sewer facilities in ships etc.


Oh I could well believe that, those are real confined spaces. My point
is that H2S slowly percolating to the surface of a landfill site is just
a non-issue.

Except for odour. And that it can reach high enough levels to be
dangerous. And it makes the cost and complexity of handling other gases
greater. You have to scrub the gas to remove the hydrogen sulphide
before using the methane.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...57582010000716

--
Rod

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:56:05 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 16/06/2016 22:54, James Wilkinson wrote:

He's only trying to save money. If the government wants things recycled
or disposed of correctly, they shouldn't charge us for it. Charging
people for things makes them avoid it.

So should I pay for YOUR waste to be recycled? If so, why?

It all boils down to a lack of understanding of 'citizenship. Many of
us could 'get away' with / by not doing stuff or not doing it the way
we are supposed but don't because we understand and accept our social
responsibilities.

'James' would probably be the one of those who drops litter because
'it gives someone a job'. ;-(

There are those who don't do what is required because of ignorance ...
like the old dear we keep an eye on who puts *all* things made of
plastic in the 'plastic recycling' thinking 1) they want all plastics
and 2) they will sort it out if they don't. Talking to someone who
works at a recycling centre he said once a consignment of supposedly
pure waste like that (the best one being what should be 'plastic
bottles') becomes contaminated beyond a particular threshold the whole
lot gets rejected. Now, if someone came a knocked on her door
demanding more money to do 'her job' then *maybe* she might understand
(more so than her / our rates going up to cover the same).

The nearest to a sensible approach appears to be with electrical goods
where the cost of recycling is directly borne by the industry which
makes the goods. Obviously, they in their turn have already charged the
purchaser when the goods were first purchased.

Quite, but we (the people choosing to buy this stuff) still have a
*responsibility* to ensure it is disposed of the best way.

[I have no idea how well the scheme works behind the scenes. What
happens if a major manufacturer goes bust and is no longer a source of
funds? At the recycling centre, it seems just fine.]

At our recycling centre there is a large skip for 'Electrical goods'
and it is very saddening to me to see the quality and range of things
people just 'throw away', rather than repair, offer to others
(Freecycle) or re-purpose.

Cheers, T i m