From: sdh4@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SCOTT DYLAN HARDING)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: He who talks arithmetic is doomed to talk NONSENSE
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:43:31 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <JMC.92Dec15192521@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John Mc
Carthy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.214940.133747@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sdh4@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (
SCOTT DYLAN HARDING) writes:
>   >Let's do the arithmetic.  500 million tons of waste per year in the
>   >U.S. assuming a density of 1.0 comes to 500 million cubic meters.
>   >Suppose it is piled 25  meters high.  This comes to 20 million
>   >square meters per year, or 20 square kilometers.  The area of the
>   >U.S. is 3 million square miles or 23 million square kilometers.
>   >It will take a million years to cover the country with trash.
>   >
>   >If we do nothing special for 100 years, we will use up 1/10,000 th of
>   >the country.  100 years from now our descendants will be as much more
>   >technologically capable than we are, as we are compared to the people
>   >of 100 years ago.
>   >--
>   >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>   >
>   >
>   >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>   >-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>   He who does too much arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>
>       Covering 1/10000 of the US in 25 meters of trash will leach chemicals
>       into a much, much larger prtion of the water table, perhaps as much as
>       1/750 or so.  With so many towns and cities already hurting for fresh
>       water, do you think that this is OK?
>
>       Nowhere near 1/10000 of the land in the US is suitable for use as a
>       landfill site due to economic, geologic and environmental reasons.  If w
e
>       build landfills in the middle of the Mojave Desert, don't you think the
>       money used to transport all those million of tons of trash out there wou
ld
>       easily pay for the recycling of that same trash?
>
>       Get off the numbers and get real!
>   --
>   -----------------
>   Scott Harding
>   Lehigh University
>
>No, I don't think the money used transport trash would pay for its
>recycling assuming that the minimum wage was paid for the work involved.
>However, I haven't done that calculation.
>
>Nevertheless, I have done some relevant calculations with some relevant
>numbers, whereas Scott Harding is trying to get by on pure hot air.
>Such slogans as "Get off the numbers and get real!" will not convince
>anyone of anything, although they might help rally the already convinced.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

[BEGIN NEW INSTALLMENT IN FLAME]

    First of all, you have ONE HUGE GLARING ERROR in your calculation.  The
    area of the US is only 9.372610 million square kilometers.  The former
    Soviet Union is just a little less than 23 million square kilometers.
    This will change the amount of land covered in trash 100 years from now to
    1/5000 of the US land area.  I don't know where you got your land area
    figure but you may want to check it.  Both of my sources indicated the
    above figure.

    How can you consider your calculations to even vaguely represent reality
    when you fail to take into account many factors which would invariably
    change the values which you get in your calculations.

    You fail to consider (and this is not a complete list):
            1. Economic factors
            2. Various geologic factors (groundwater, faulting, mountains)
            3. Private land ownership (2/3 of US land is privately owned)
            4. Existing development (Lets just bury cities and neighborhoods)
            5. Bacteriological contamination of surrounding habitated areas
            6. Any laws concerning landfill location
            7. Living conditions in the future when landfills abound
            8. Public opinion
            9. The amount of trash created will undoubtedly increase as our
            population increases.
            10. Population increase = more land area inhabited by humans

    Yes, putting economic and practical reasoning aside, there is plenty of
    room to create new landfills.  Don't you think that the preservation of
    land in its natural state is important?

    Seeing as how so many localities are having problems locating sites for
    new landfills, don't you feel compelled to enlighten them with your voodoo
    arithmetic?

    Face it, the garbage glut is a problem which we need to deal with.  We are
    the only species on the planet which faces possible harm from our own
    waste.  Recycling is not the complete solution, nor is building more and
    more landfills.  The only true solution is source reduction.  It is time
    for us to do something.  Laziness, complacency, and ignorance will only put
    us in a more perilous position than we are now in.

    [END FLAME]


    
-- 
-----------------
Scott Harding
Lehigh University