From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: He who talks arithmetic is doomed to talk NONSENSE
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:30:47

I did make a mistake in translating from square miles to square
kilometers.  And I used a calculator too.

Harding claims my calculations are irrelevant for not taking into
account the following factors.

    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

If I purported to present a complete plan for waste disposal, some of them
would have to be taken into account.  Most of them need only be taken into
account qualitatively.  Here are a few considerations.

1. Economic factors.  Dean Alaska raised the question of transportation
costs.  Here's a relevant comparison.  There are 500 millions tons of
trash, and the U.S. mines 800 million tons of coal per year.  On the
average the coal is transported farther than the trash would have to
be transported by rail and barge and ship.  Therefore, transporting the
trash can be done at a reasonable cost to the economy when it has to be
tranported long distances.

2. Various geologic factors.  Doubtless some sites will be unsuitable.

3. Private land ownership.  Land for disposal should be bought at
market prices.  The posted calculations show the amount isn't too
large.

4.Existing development.  Yes, we shouldn't dump trash in the middle
of cities.

5. Bacterial contamination.  There doesn't seem to be a significant
bacterial contamination from landfills now.  Why would one be expected?

6. Laws concerning landfill location.  They will have to be obeyed or
changed.

7. Living conditions when "landfills abound".  Vague word "abound".
Does it refer to tens of thousands of years from now and assume that
our descendants will do everything the same way we do?  Or does it
refer to the present.  In some sense, landfills abound today.

8. Public opinion.  I am trying to influence it.  So are the other
posters.  None very effectively.

9. The amount of trash created will undoubtedly increase.  It might.

10. Population increase = more land inhabited by humans.  Also more
land needed to grow food for them, which is a many times larger problem
than finding space for dumps.

Harding summarizes with more bombast.


    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.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment