|
Page 6 of 11 pages ‹ First < 4 5 6 7 8 > Last › |
Rex D.
in Milwaukee, WI
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 | 05:35 AM
OK, makes sense, but you are wrong in a major area here, and that is that the thread was to prove that the wheelchairs by milk-cap donations were false, which was, yes, but the thread was to disprove that milk-caps were being donated at all, and sad to sat Dom, but as it appears, they are being donated to collect money, and not wheelchairs. So they are being collected. That was the point, was it not? |
Dominic Shields
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 | 10:00 AM
Sarah's original query of Aug 27 2004 reads
"How about some hoax-busting on the stories about collecting a child's weight in empty Walkers Crisps Packets to fund an operation and the one that is currently going round Britain like wildfare - a hoax about collecting a wheelchair's weight in plastic milk bottle tops or other plastic bottle tops to get someone a wheelchair?" |
Rex D.
in Milwaukee, WI
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 | 04:42 PM
I stand corrected there. This went so long that I had forgotten the original query, but we have found that caps are being collected and donated for a good cause which everybody was saying that it was not true. Only the wheelchair part is not true, but donating caps for a good cause is. |
Cranky Media Guy
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 | 05:56 AM
This kind of hoax (or collective delusion) is not new. At least here in the U.S., this kind of thing dates back to at least the 1930's.
A variation on it was a rumor that the Ford company would give you a car if you found a certain vintage penny, I believe.
These things are NEVER true. I remember reading a story several years ago about some town in America that collected a HUGE lot of something-or-other in the mistaken belief that the manufacturer would give them medical supplies for a local child who was sick. Needless to say, the locals were very disappointed (and pretty pissed-off at the guy who organized the drive) when they found out that there was no truth to the story. |
Dominic Shields
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 | 04:19 PM
I'm sorry to keep banging on here - really I am - just like the snopes.com page on the subject. What I keep coming back to personally is :
Would I in all conscience suggest to people that they collected such worthless items on the vague promise that you might get |
Liam Murphy
in Manchester
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 | 01:07 PM
Hi
my name is liam and i am a student beginning a project into the feasiability of starting a bootle top recycling scheme in my area for charity. Any info -from how quickly and how many you could collect? Existing schemes i could contact? Especially interested if any one knows a school or organisation that has collected whether hoaxed or not?
thnk u
rgds
liam |
Liam Murphy
in Manchester
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 | 01:41 PM
also on the whole wheelchair thing RECOUP (RECycling Of Used Plastics) believes the hoax may have originated from exustence of Bouchons d'amour, a national charity in France which collects bottle tops mainly for sports wheelchairs. They have made over |
Dominic Shields
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 | 07:09 PM
Liam, I am not an economist but your logic seems to imply that there is an infinite demand for bottle tops and also that the collection of them is simply a numbers game that doesn't have its own costs. It also implies that there are infinite numbers of people willing to recycle them and pay money for the raw material.
A few years ago the British Royal Institution Christmas Lectures were done by a materials scientist and during the lecture on plastics what struck me forcibly (as I remember it) was that plastics are a very poor use of the planet's resources as not only are they very expensive in hydrocarbons to produce, they are very expensive in energy terms to recycle. I claim no expertise in this area and others may correct me.
A link that may interest you that has been quoted umpteen times already is
http://www.shartwell.freeserve.co.uk/humor-site/walkers-hoax.htm#bottletops
Finally, why are you only interested in collecting the tops ? What on earth is the problem with the bulk of the plastic contained in the rest of the bottle ? |
Liam Murphy
in Manchester
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 | 03:49 PM
on bottle tops: probably a hoax unless it is for Naomi House Children's Hospice in Winchester. They collect red, green and blue milk bottle tops to help thier fuel bill. As part of my project am trying to contact other claimants of sucessful schemes.... let ya know.
on the bottle: PET is indeed recyclable a much more valuable than the tops coz of weight and maybe plastic type. However as a student this subject is quite exhaustively covered by RECOUP (www.recoup.org). A quick scan there will tell you everything. Also manchester operate a collection scheme for PET post-consumer bottles at 7 supermarket sites.
regarding my project - bottle top collection is possible but wil never be PROFITABLE. however that does not stop the activity from yielding revenue.
This can produce a level of constant fund for charitable causes if
1 storage is free (or as good as).
2 transport costs are quite low e.g < 25%
3 some people sacrifice loads of time
4 loadsa people sacrifice very little time and keep their tops, get them took to schools etc.
i.e. operating expenses except transport are zero
France has a national charity that have zero operating expences. Transport costs are took from the price paid for the tonne(s) of tops. I don't speak french and am strugling with some of the sites esp. since googles translation ain't always too hot but i thnk that sometime they get charitable types to provide transport for free. They currently collect around 200 tons a month and recieve a bit less than 200000 euros a month for it.
As i've said the best bit about this whole thing is that the oragnisation came out of the myth.
To work in the UK, especially on such a scale as bouchons d'amour, would want a network of reprocessors (they use 4 currnetly) covering particular areas of the country. Any plastics people listening? also according to recoup reprocessor demand is 3x supply in uk.
The hoaxes prove there are people willing and able to collect and just need loadsa poeple to keep hold of a few and it does add up. The UK used 24.65 million plastic bottles per day in 2003 (recoup)- i'm not saying they would all be recycled but if they were they could get 2 sports wheelchairs for bouchons d'amour so i assume 2 pretty decent wheelchairs here too.
Next need regional and local depots in schools or under any roof that satisfies fire saftey coz lets face it no ones gonna rob them coz there pretty worthless unless your a plastic reprocessor and even then only what |
Liam Murphy
in Manchester
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 | 03:51 PM
cont.
Finally regarding the energy use making and recycling plastic. A ton of plastic takes 1.8 ton of oil to make. Seems to me to be worse to throw it away. have to dig out more oil when that plastic could be used for other plastic products, particularly plastic timber. Help save oil and energy consumption finding it and digging it up.
Also if not recycled there are two options for councils
1 landfill = tax not to mention the environment effect of plastic. Very long Life cycle, dangerous to wildlife particularly marine-small pieces mistaken for food all down the food chain - gulls and fishes bellies swollen with it- also crashing against rocks in waves etc can go minutely small, into tiny strands eaten by small fish then taken up food chain.
(from The Independent but you gotta pay for article now on t' net)
The tax ain't nothing small, new EU legislation means that get charged per ton over allowance and tax will increase as time goes on - and us brits are way ahead of most of europe on the whole sending lots to landfill league.
2 Incineration. Avoid tax but do we really want to put all that stuff in air?
Now i did a degree in economics and i'll tell u what the councils will choose assuming they short termist in outlook. the most efficient use of their resources and they will burn waste - get energy, avoid tax. be a money spinner compared to recycling. Most profitsble/cost-effective always good???
ideally we need to use less plastic. But industry loves 'em - hygeine etc. but really they know its looks that sell. biodegradables an improvement but they will give off green house gas methane unless composted proper. Reuse would be good but impossible- against legislation post-consmuer plastics cannot be used for foodstuffs again- gotta be virgin plastic -probably reason for layers uopn layers of plastic then least outer layers of wrapping on massive pallets and that can be recycled for same use. Recycling is good then, shame so much is shipped abraod (particularly PET bottles - 25 make a fleece in china!), though that wouldn't have to bottle tops unless been shredded and pulverised i imagine.
All thats just what i believe and could provide evidence of if writing an essay...
which reminds me you might want this
www.bouchonsdamour.com
the best stuff is in the individual departments websites
+++ |
Liam Murphy
in Manchester
|
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 | 03:52 PM
cont.
So really why bottle tops?
So small they are brill. Any one can collect them and help - people who don't recycle nothing else, kids whose parents don't. Too small to be good for profit if you are gonna collect them it'd have to be for charity. Get evryone involved and see that a little thing nd bit of effort can do good. It could be used as an educational tool in schools, my primary aim for collectors, especially in the complicated realm of plastics. Bouchons d'amour is suprisingly big in france, spreading to Belgium (partner = IECC- international excutive chef's club- hotels), in some parts of italy, other parts have started own bottle top collection for an italian water charity (www.cmsr.org/campagne/acqua/acqua).
what does this add up to. The sucess in france has got a lot to do with their good recycling record - they've had a lot less mines to fill and have been recycling longer. Also media interest with a top comedian (it seems - french sites again), womens PGA golf tour getting through few thousand a week (they already recycled the bottles and used to chuck the tops) and paris half marathon. However stil exceeded expectations so much bouchons d'amour sought other reprocessors than their original Eurocompound. but eurocompound thought they had exclusive rights and there a legal battle over the name of the charity. Most people seem to have been loyal to the comic but from the jist i think that Eurocompound have put bottle top collection points at recycling depots, but i have to admit i'm sketchy on last bit. If it true, or even if the depot bit is not, plus the legal battle show there must be some money and economic benefit up the supply stream even if it is only at the reclylor level. If, with voluntary hope, charities can benefit from demand for plastics it is a GOOD thing.
Finally if everything works out such a charitable scheme could help change the UKs whole recycling culture - bringing more awareness, more involvement and less bloody rubbish.
rgds
soz if y'all fell asleep |
Dominic Shields
in Wales
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 | 08:36 AM
Liam, let me first congratulate you on the first well-researched and cogently argued message in favour of recycling the tops. I have just two observations.
The lecturer at the Royal Institution's point was that as well as being horrendous in hydrocarbons to produce, plastics were equally bad to recycle so the net gain is very hard to pinpoint, avoidance of the material is the best plan.
The reasoning as to the choice of bottle tops - they are small does a few things for me - firstly undermines the whole recycling agenda as you are missing most of the plastic, secondly the information I had was that the plastic in the top was of a lower grade than the bottle and thirdly those one pence coins I keep on about are even smaller and are 20 to 50 times more valuable.
My third point of two is that the transport arrangements for this exercise have a measurable impact on the planet so have to be part of the cost-benefit equation. |
Liam Murphy
in Manchester
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 | 11:54 AM
ok fair nuff
firstly i did sat that ideally we should use less plastic but your argument misses the whole point that it is there in the production and waste stream for at least the foreseeable future probably decades or more. Wasteonline has section of its environmental impacts of extraction and manufacture, potential dangerous chemicals and Long life cycle making it virtually non-degradable. All this I accept.
But Plastic has benefits industry love. Firstly it is relatively cheap esp when compared to glass bottle and metal cap. VERY VERSITILE- loadsa different types of plastic not to mention the possibilities of combining plastics to give father benefits, even just cosmetic. And it is light "Up to 40% less fuel is used to transport drinks in plastic bottles compared to glass bottles" (RECOUP). That |
Liam Murphy
in Manchester
|
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 | 11:55 AM
Cont.
Right so industry recycles 95% of their waste. But "This is relatively simple and economical to recycle, as there is a regular and reliable source and the material is relatively uncontaminated." (wasteonline.org - plastic fact sheet)
We'll ignore specialist plastics like ABS in cars etc., think they pretty good on those too though -least compared to households
Next comes post-use plastic. Households are largest producers of this but plastic only makes up 7% of the weight of the bin - although in "visibility" stakes probably accounts for 50% I reckon.
Then there are difficulties. Contamination is the main one. From this I mean foodstuff, glue, and paper but worse would be a high proportion of a different plastic. A few percent of wrong polymer could make whole load worthless. Need to target particular polymers and maximise cleaning and sorting.
4% of bin is dense plastics but there are different types of plastic for bottles of shampoo and pop, with different plastic in some caps and yogurt pots are rigid polystyrene then there's expanded polystyrene.
3% is films. Also sometimes made of different polymers but equally recyclable. God even my Andrex packaging is labelled LDPE. However still recyclable even it they icky (though this discourages households - ickyness). (wastonline figures)
Plastic bottles is being taken on by councils and heavily promoted by recoup. Film harder to collect, lighter, likely to be contaminated with foodstuff. Same yougurt pots shampoo or household cleaners like bleach. Plastic vending cups was my originally idea from all those water coolers and that. But Save A Cup already exists |
Dominic Shields
|
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 | 03:56 PM
Again very comprehensive but I think we are never going to agree on the bottle top fixation - either recycle the whole container or don't, but don't piddle about with a tiny fraction of it.
If you recycle for the right reasons - saving the planet - then you have to accept that it is not about making money, its about trying to make the planet's resources go further.
This unfortunate hoax, as all the best ones do, muddies the water rather nicely. |
Rex D.
in Milwaukee, WI
Member
|
Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 | 08:39 PM
Who said the rest of the bottle isn't recycled? |
Dominic Shields
|
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 | 10:16 AM
Err Liam did
Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 | 12:52 PM
cont.
So really why bottle tops?
So small they are brill. |
Liam
in manchester
|
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 | 10:39 AM
hi
thought i'd explained quite well but lets try again.
The bottles and the tops are made either of different grades or types of plastic. The process is different to recycle different types of plastic. If a quantity of one plastic is CONTAMINATED with a small amount of a different type of plastic it could ruin entire output.
You cannot recycle tops and bottle together.
Bottles are recycled in UK, 485 million in 2003 from 9.1 billion (www.recoup.org). Tops are not except by Naomi House.
Bouchons d'amour recycled over a billion tops in 2003.
On the pennies. Same comparison made by an italian professer to organiser of collection in Tuscany (www.cmsr.org/campagne/storia)but it was 1 cent of a euro rather than a penny.
The answer is the same: Would make more money if collectors gave penny rather than tops.
But collecting allows everyone who wants to to become involved. The whole action is educational and creates intangiable benefits (knowledge on issues, inclusion) that are even more difficult to calculate than the possible tangiable benefits (environmental and charity reevenue). |
Liam
in manchester
|
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 | 10:57 AM
right
so it tops were collected we get to my cultural argument again.
Households who collect tops will ask same question you ask. What about the bottles?
If council has collection scheme may increase the volumes they collect as involvement in recycling increases. An intangiable benefit arising from bottle top collections.
If the council does not run the scheme from the charirties point of view may be more worthwhile to collect bottles in that area. If they can get the storage for several tonnes of plastic tops and bottles do both.
Then they'll ask questions about other plastics and other waste.. possibly changing some peoples attitutes on recycling forever.
Also finally i am doing a project and have not reached any conclusions yet, though it is obvious i have a positive outlook on the possibilites.
Once again like to APPEAL to any others on this tread or who might read it and have collecte tops whether hoaxed or no i would like to contact them. Find out a few things like how much collected, how long it took, how many involved, name of charity or plastic reprocessor etc..
my e-mail is on a previous post |
Dominic Shields
|
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 | 12:07 PM
Sorry once again Liam, I understand, I just don't agree. |
|
Page 6 of 11 pages ‹ First < 4 5 6 7 8 > Last › |
