Comments TrashTsar has made

  • We use "rented" sheep and goats to graze our 93-acre closed landfill. As the site is just a few miles from Google, we may use the very same animals, in fact.


    Why do we use livestock instead of mechanical mowers and why don't we just get rid of the grass?

    Answering the second question first, the grass is required as part of our landfill closure plan. Without it, the topsoil cover would erode during the winter rains here in California. Erosion would allow damage to the engineered clay cap that seals the top of the landfill and keeps the garbage and methane from escaping.

    During the rains, the grass grows waist high, then it drys out around May, posing a real fire hazard to us and to our industrial neighbors. Of the grass removal methods we have available, mowers cause fires--goats do not. When we used tractor mowers, they twice started grass fires, and one of the fires spread to 10 acres before the fire department put it out.

    Also, as Umbra pointed out, goats help to eradicate weeds. We have seen a sharp reduction in the amount of noxious yellow star thistle since we started using goats. The fertilizer they leave behind is a plus.

    Finally, buried all over in the top foot or two of the landfill cover is a lot of plastic pipe (under vacuum) that collects the landfill gas and moves it to the big engine-generators where it is burned to make electricity. When we used tractors, their weight did a lot of serious, but hidden damage to those pipes, which posed real problems for the engine-generators. The last time we hired tractor mowers to cut the grass, the cost of the gas system damage was more than the dollar value of the contract, and we were chasing vacuum leaks for months.

    And of course, the goats and sheep are far more pleasing than tractors. Our landfill gets a lot of recreational foot traffic and the walkers really like having the critters around.

    On Ask Umbra on mowing with goats posted 6 months, 1 week ago 8 Responses

  • Picture 105 Truckloads of Single-Use Diapers

    Umbra, Umbra--I thought you had more common sense than this!
    With the disposable diaper industry enjoying revenues of billions of dollars per year, of course they don't mind spending a very small fraction of that to "buy" a scientist to write them a report slamming the competition (cloth diapers).
    Paper plants and plastic-making factories use immense amounts of water to make disposables--far more than is consumed in washing cloth diapers. Not to mention the one-way flow of resources and energy from forest and earth to the landfill.
    When we studied (1995) what was in the trash generated by our city of 135,000, we found residents threw away 840 tons of single-use diapers per year--that's the equivalent of 105 trash truck loads per year! And the diaper-clad make up a pretty small slice of our population.
    As a solid waste manager, I'm distressed that so much of my City's financial resources are spent collecting and hauling these unnecessary items.
    Our City Council is on record supporting reusable diapers. It's just common sense.
    Mark Bowers
    Solid Waste Program Manager
    City of Sunnyvale, CaliforniaOn Umbra Fisk on the great diaper debate posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

  • Like All the Other Markets, Recycling has Crashed

    We're having similar problems in the US. A big part of the problem is that the lockup in the credit markets has made it difficult for Chinese buyers to get the "letters of credit" that facilitate exports. Without a letter of credit, a seller in the US has no assurance of getting paid.

    Adding to the problem is that, in response to the worldwide economic slowdown, paper mills and other industries in China have slowed output and thus slowed or stopped their imports of recycled raw materials.  That has caused prices for recyclables to fall very far and very fast. Mixed paper, for example, has fallen from $120 per ton in July to -$3 today (yes, we PAY the "buyer" $3 to recycle the paper!).

    Recycled content requirements and extended producer responsibility are important concepts that will help in the long term.  But in the short run, if the economy is dead, there's just no demand for recyclables.On As material prices fall, U.K. grapples with mounds of un-recycled recyclables posted 1 year ago 3 Responses

  • Thanks for Poo-pooing Biodegradable Bags

    Umbra,

    As a landfill manager and recycler, I thank you for noting that biodegradable bags are generally a waste of money. This is a point on which many members of the public are very confused/deluded.

    Bags that biodegrade (assuming they live up to their advertising claims) do little to assist us at the landfill. If I had my way, nothing in my landfill would degrade. That would spare me the cost of managing the landfill gas (methane) that results from decomposition. Decaying garbage causes the surface to settle and creates low spots that collect rain water and get me in trouble with the regulators.

    Post-consumer plastic bags are very hard to recycle as it is.  The few buyers that exist are very picky about contaminants like bread crumbs, moisture, paper receipts, price tags, and the like.  The last thing they want to do is introduce biodegradable plastics into the mix and end up with a product that decomposes in the hands of a consumer who was looking to buy a durable product.

    Biodegradability is a red herring when it comes to plastic bags.

    Bottom line?  Take a reusable bag to the store, and if you NEEd a bag for some use, buy one!On Umbra on trash bags posted 1 year, 8 months ago 21 Responses

  • Making Paper Takes Lots of Water

    Anyone (hubby, in this case)who advocates using paper plates to save water has never been to a paper mill. The paper manufacturing process uses LOTS of water. Making a single paper plate likely requires far more water than washing a durable plate.On Umbra on paper plates posted 1 year, 10 months ago 15 Responses

  • For My CFLs, It's Sylvania

    I have tried a wide variety of CFLs from different retailers and manufacturers in attempts to satisfy the requirements of my wavelength-conscious spouse. Most of the soft whites are too yellow, and the daylight bulbs give a weird, sterile look to things in a home setting (might be fine for a workshop, though).

    My favorite, hands down, is the Sylvania line (sold only at Lowe's, at least in our town). The packages and bulbs are clearly labeled with the color wavelengths, (2700k, 3000k, 3500k etc.).  This gives me more confidence in knowing that I'm getting the color I am looking for.  And Sylvania makes a very nice 3-way bulb that mimics a 30-70-100 incandescent.  The light quality is good and passes the "spouse test" with flying colors.  My only gripe is that the 3-way bulb is about a quarter inch too wide to fit inside some of our smaller lamp harps.On A review of compact fluorescent bulbs posted 1 year, 11 months ago 28 Responses

  • Seriously--Don't Leave Them In Your Garage!

    Another reason to avoid storing hazardous materials in your garage long-term is that some of them are flammable. A few years ago, my neighbor's garage caught on fire because he had stored flammables there in containers that leaked.  Fumes got to the hot water heater pilot light...

    No people died, but the cat did. The fire spread into the attic of the house and did major damage.On Umbra on disposing of toxic chemicals posted 2 years, 8 months ago 3 Responses

  • Reuse Boxes--Save Money and the Environment, Too!

    One way to reduce the environmental impacts of moving is to buy used boxes.  I'm talking about the standard sized moving boxes (book, wardrobe, etc.) that promote efficient use of space in the truck.  Most towns of any size will have some who sells used moving boxes in good condition at half (or less) the cost of new boxes.  Often the rental truck outfits sell used boxes, but you may have to ask.

    Then, when you are done with the move, sell the boxes back to the same type of outfit in your new town.  You'll save money on one end and make money on the other end.

    After years spent operating recycling centers, I still cringe when I see someone drive in to recycle perfectly good boxes that have a resale value of hundreds of dollars.  Yes, recycling is good--but REUSE is better.On Umbra on moving posted 3 years, 5 months ago 3 Responses

  • So Far South it Looks Like North to Me

    I remember writing a college term paper 25 or more years ago on just such a proposal to transport water from Western Canada to the Los Angeles/Las Vegas area.  It was called NAWAPA (North American Water and Power Alliance) and would use natural features like lakes, rivers (e.g. the Columbia) and desert valleys east of the Sierra Madre to move the water with a minimum of tunnels and pumping.

    The power part was about capturing hydroelectricity at appropriate points and using the electricity to pump the water where it needed to go up hill.

    The engineers had worked out the details so that it looked like a doable, if expensive project--it's not so far-fetched as one would assume.

    Note that I'm not saying that it would be a good or smart thing to do this.  What I am saying is that Canadians should be very afraid!  On Where's tomorrow's water? posted 3 years, 6 months ago 15 Responses

  • Heal Thyself

    Joel Makower's report is on target--and the opportunities to improve waste handling in health-care make it a BIG target.

    One issue he didn't mention is radioactive waste.  We installed a radiation detector at the gates to our solid waste transfer station in order to protect our workers from the hazards of unseen radiation.  ALL of the "hits" (radioactive loads) so far have been inappropriately disposed radioactive medical waste.

    It's been short half-life stuff, and parking the loads overnight allowed all of them to pass on retest. But our experience reinforces the author's comments about the need for extra care in performing the janitorial function in medical facilities.On Hospitals and doctors' offices look to cure their environmental ills posted 3 years, 8 months ago 3 Responses

  • But What About Overall Food Costs?

    While it may be true that the cost of individual organic items is usually more than their "conventional" counterparts, there is something else to consider.  How much do you spend on groceries overall?

    Our family switched to buying most everything organic a few years ago.  Our local vendor of organics is Whole Foods, a switch from the local Safeway and its somewhat less expensive warehouse affiliate.  I assumed that our grocery expense would go up as a result (but that's OK, right?--we are talking about our health and the health of the workers involved in the process).

    After a year, curious about how much MORE we were spending, I ran a Quicken report that compared the cost of the first year of shopping at Whole Foods to the previous, "inorganic" year of grocery shopping.  There were no changes in our household size (three), etc.  To my amazement, our overall spending on groceries went DOWN!

    "Why," you ask?  The only explanation that I can think of is that by shopping less often at Safeway, we made fewer purchases of impulse items and junk food, like those yummy Lay's potato chips and Hagen Daz ice cream bars.  But the difference was real, about a 10% decrease as I recall, amounting to several hundred dollars per year (it's been a while since I ran those numbers).

    My point is that you may have to look deeper than pin-point price comparisons to find the true savings in adopting healthier eating habits.On Seriously, now -- why aren't organics getting affordable? posted 4 years, 3 months ago 18 Responses