Ozone layer

Status
Not open for further replies.

Talula

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,047
Role
  1. Private
Like h3g3l said, not in the grand scheme of things, but yes, they are harming the environment. They cannot be recycled, so are being sent to landfill which is bad for the environment.
 
C

crazykittensmile

Guest
Are the diapers we throw away, harming the enviroment? :sad:

Yes, you can't deny that to an extent they are harming the environment, as is pretty much everything man-made that we use and dispose of in our everyday lives. Manufacturing disposable diapers uses raw materials, such as wood pulp that, if less people required diapers to be made could be used for other things or free up the amount of land that is used for tree-farming. The manufacturing process uses resources such as water and crude oil, and most disposable diapers are bleached with chlorine or other chemicals, which is not good for the environment. The gel inside most diapers is also full of chemicals that are not good for the environment. On top of all of that, they go to landfill sites where they won't decompose for 100s of years, and even then the plastic parts won't bio-degrade fully, leaving tiny plastic-particles in the soil. There is a lot of information about the environmental costs of diapers (both disposable and cloth) to be found on the internet if it is something you are interested in.

However, when if you compare occasionally wearing a diaper to, for example, driving a car the environmental cost of being an AB/DL would be quite low in comparison. Everything we do effects the environment to an extent, and whilst it is a good thing to take steps to limit the impact you have on the environment that doesn't mean you have to give up wearing diapers any more than you should give up using a computer or boiling the kettle.
 

pajamakitten

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,443
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Babyfur
  4. Sissy
  5. Carer
Does it harm the environment? Yes it does. However the amount that AB/DLs throw away is just a drop in the ocean when you compare it to how many baby diapers are thrown away each year. It wouldn't surprise me if more baby diapers are thrown away per day than adult diapers (at least the ones thrown away by AB/DLs) per year, hundreds (or even thousands) of times over as well.
 

NahSon

Est. Contributor
Messages
136
Role
  1. Private
Well, they're not harming the ozone layer much, but as for being waste and polluting the planet, yes diapers in general do. Currently because of containing bio waste, paper and plastic, plus rubber they are a difficult product to recycle. :dunno:

if they ever find ways of ridding them of the urine and poo in them, and then somehow rip them apart by each material, then yes, maybe they could be recycled, but for now it's not easy.
 

Draugr

Est. Contributor
Messages
502
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Diaperfur
  4. Incontinent
There's good evidence to suggest that cloth diapers are not really that much more economical than disposables. A little, but not significantly. They simply use different resources.

A 35 square mile landfill, 100 yards deep, could fulfill all of America's landfill needs for the next thousand years (of course, nobody is suggesting to make one giant landfill). This also discounts the possibility that more economical means will be found for the use of trash, or perhaps recycling methods for things that currently are trash.

Landfills are fairly economical - when finally closed, they are usually turned into public parks, or a nature preserve, things like that. Something of good use. Trees/shrubs planted, etc, all that. Landfills are not "bad" for the environment. Many even capture the gasses released through the installed vents and burn them for fuel to create energy. There is simply just no truth to the idea that landfills are "bad" for the environment. Not in a general sense - I am sure I or anyone else could find an example of a landfill that was poorly placed (too close to water table, maybe?), ignored regulations, etc.

90% of you would probably never recognize a modern landfill if you walked into one. They're clean. The bad publicity they get is before they cover up the trash.

There are more trees in America today than at any time in the past - strictly due to logging needs. Wood pulp for diapers being a small part of that. Tree farms are harvested and replanted. We aren't running into the forests you are accustomed to seeing, clear-cutting the entire area, and leaving the remains to rot.
 

Draugr

Est. Contributor
Messages
502
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Diaperfur
  4. Incontinent
The "landfill crisis" is an entirely invented construct. There is more than enough space to provide our landfill needs for CENTURIES. And they can be useful, too.

The methane from this place is used to create power for around 10,000 homes.

I'd wager an estimate of 1/week as being a ridiculously liberal estimate, as well, given the scores of teenagers unable to wear due to living at home with parents, the long periods of time many go between wearing due to binge/purge cycles.

Mandating recycling is a horrible idea, given that such legislation usually backfires and creates the opposite effect (seriously, what PD on the planet would even be capable of enforcing that?). Actual recycling benefits for some materials are dubious, at best - and are almost always very costly to communities.
 

Draugr

Est. Contributor
Messages
502
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Diaperfur
  4. Incontinent
Your forgeting the fact that those type of landfills are only in the VERY small minority!

Um, no they are not. All landfills fall under the same federal regulations, not to mention state-level restrictions which are normally more severe. Although not all burn methane to provide power, none are simply allowed to release it into the atmosphere. Normal method is to collect the gas in pipes, allow it to rise to the surface, and burn it.

To say landfills are NOT bad for the enviroment is TOTALLY ridiculous. I dont know of ANY waste disposal company who uses enviromentally friendly garbage trucks and heavy machinery used to move all that garbage. You are killing the enviroment inorder to build the landfill, killing all the wildlife that lives in and above the ground, then the area has to be monitored for ever, and all runoff needs to be collected, trasnported, processed. Then you figure all the methane gas that is released into the atmosphere. Even if they do build a park ontop of all that trash, even if it looks clean and smells clean, that might be better then having it all exposed, but to say that it is not bad for the enviroment is totally not even close to being true!

Oh for god's sake. That's ridiculous hyperbole. You may as well say existing is "bad for the environment." None of that even dignifies a response. What are you suggesting we do, live in trees and shit in the woods? Trash exists. Landfills are a remarkably well-developed method of dealing with trash...as one might expect.

its totally invented, ha, your saying that it is totally invented, because it there is enough space to last centuries, so when exactly does the crisis start, in a few centuries? To say it is not a problem because it wont affect my generation, we will just let the future generations deal with this...

Try one thousand years. And all that trash...from ONE THOUSAND YEARS of human existence...that would take up a single square area, 35 miles on each side, and 100 yards deep - which can then be covered up and re-purposed. So, um, yeah, it's probably going to be a few millennium before there even begins to be a space issue...and I say that quite hesitantly.

You will be able to find the sorce for SOME places that are able to use methane and make some use of landfills, but I see many people are ignoring the fact that the world isnt all made of developed countries! All those developing countries, a majority of, that dont regulate landfills and just dump there trash, were all the runoff goes into lakes, streams, the ocean.

We can't control foreign countries. We CAN control what WE do, however.
 
Last edited:

Draugr

Est. Contributor
Messages
502
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Diaperfur
  4. Incontinent
On the other hand, when we dug up the ground to lay the Alaskan pipeline, it was an overwhelming benefit to natural wildlife - they sought out the warmth. They have moved their grazing and breeding grounds closer to such an "unnatural" part of their habitat.

Might it be, then, that the creation of a landfill might have multi-faceted affects on natural wildlife...or, gasp, even a net benefit? Consider the insect life that a landfill provides a habitat for. Some creatures are displaced, and must find new homes. Others are given a new home. One must look at the displaced species, and how successful they were at relocating...and the kinds of species - was it an overpopulated one? An underpopulated one? Similar things must be looked at the kinds of life provided for in the landfill as well.

Displacement is not necessarily "bad" for the environment. We move our cattle around from pasture to pasture to prevent them from completely stripping it of vegetation. Their manure provides fertilizer for future growth. This is a very artificial means of displacement, of course, but it merely meant as an illustration as to the possible benefits of displacement. It isn't necessarily a "bad" thing.

Consider that racoon populations have SKYROCKETED as a result of humans being 'bad for the environment.'

-------

We evolved to have an almost miraculous level of intelligence, the ability to create and use tools...I would dispute the notion that we are "supposed" to be living in trees and shitting in the woods. We have the intellect and ability to create rather marvelous "habitats" for us - why on earth are we supposed to throw this away and pretend we don't have it? The wolf does not have this intellect, or the ability to use tools to manipulate his surroundings, or the abstract thought necessary to create, invent, have ideas. Why on earth should we live like him? That is nonsensical. We are "meant" to live in the structures that we have evolved the ability to create.
 
Last edited:

Gil

Est. Contributor
Messages
456
Role
  1. Diaper Lover
I dont know of ANY waste disposal company who uses enviromentally friendly garbage trucks and heavy machinery used to move all that garbage.

Our local trash company uses trucks powered by natural gas. I guess that's better for the environment than diesel.
 

Draugr

Est. Contributor
Messages
502
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Diaperfur
  4. Incontinent
You know what, forget it. Doomsday scenarios always have been and always will be idiotic. None of that even deserves a response, it just dignifies about fifteen different blatant falsehoods.

Enjoy killing the planet with your misplaced ideas of crisis. I'll continue to focus on targeting on real environmental problems, and pushing for actual, feasible solutions to them, ones that actually leave room for people.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,395
Role
  1. Private
The native americans were highly intelligent people, that had great respect for the land. They believed in living in balance with nature, you respect the land, and it gives you food to eat and many great things in return. They had tools, houses, toys, and they even had 100% biodegradable diapers! The way lived was sustainable. The food was healthy, people were happy.

No. This is the myth of the Noble Savage.

The reality was this: many tribes (not all) were outright barbaric, cannibalistic, and killed and ate tribes or people with whom they disagreed.

Much closer to the reality of the larger situation (all tribes) is the realization that they were few in number and when they exhausted the resources of one area, they moved on to another, permitting the first region to regrow and repopulate. There is no Ancient Mystic Wisdom at work here; if New York were taken down to a population of, say, 10,000, we would see much the same thing: rape the land for a bit, realize it's not yielding resources any longer, move on, repeat.

From this, I take it you've never lived in close proximity to real injuns. I used to believe as you, but years of living near and sometimes with Navajo have cured me of the myth of injuns as a wholly wise and beautiful people.

People are the same everywhere, to our detriment.

---------- Post added at 07:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:55 AM ----------

The research, development, and use of biodegradable plastics, made out of corn, is also a good step in the right direction.

It is not. We are just shifting from depleting one resource (petroleum) to another (fresh water).

Oh, and the corn from which these things are currently made is feed corn. Which means we're also creating an artificial shortage of feed for which to raise meat. I like meat; it's tasty. This is making meat more expensive, hence meaning that I'd have to work more or find a second job to afford it. What does this mean? More driving (petroleum use) or longer days at the office (energy use).

You see now how this masks, rather than solves, the larger problem?
 

Fire2box

Est. Contributor
Messages
8,376
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
I am more concerned that as humans we breath in oxygen and mostly breath out carbon dioxide. Simply being alive is polluting the environment and you don't hear environmentalists whine about this. Some of the same people also don't want us to eat meat that comes from cows because they like cows for whatever reason, even if cows produce a lot of meathane and ammonia.


Anyways I don't think humans are a big threat to the earth. I'll see it like this guy. Not like in like 7 billion years saving this planet will matter, it's going to die in the grand scheme of things thanks to the sun.

[video=youtube;eScDfYzMEEw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw[/video]
 
Last edited:

Draugr

Est. Contributor
Messages
502
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Diaperfur
  4. Incontinent
Yeah, probably because CO2 is only a "pollutant" if this planet works by acting as a physical barrier convection, and it doesn't. The misnamed "greenhouse effect" works by modulating convection.

I can't believe people are actually talking about breathing now. This is just pure insanity. Those who buy into the CO2 pollutant nonsense are still going to tell you that natural sources of CO2 (such as, you know, breathing) are offset by equally natural CO2 sinks.

People who buy into this don't care about things that are actually causing harm. All that matters is whether a substance or a technology MIGHT do harm. If the risk of harm can't be ruled out, then said product/activity/whatever should not be allowed. Never you mind if there's any legitimate science behind it. The concern is there.

The sun emits about three hundred thousand units of energy for every single unit the earth does (radiation trapped by the greenhouse effect, delayed on its return to space, as well as other artificial sources of energy). These emissions span wavelengths from near zero, to about 2 micrometers. The earth, on the other hand, emits wavelengths primarily in the 3-25 micrometer range.

We have all this insanity about CO2, while ignoring things which play a role hundreds of times greater - water vapor and clouds, which absorb a far GREATER spectrum of radiation. Liberal (meaning high-reaching, not talking about political philosophies) estimates put CO2 as being .038% of the atmosphere (a rise of about .01% prior to the industrial revolution).

Water vapor at any one time comprises from 0% to 4% of the atomosphere, depending on where you are, what layer of the atmosphere we are in, etc. If Carbon Dioxide increasing concentrations by .01% would have put us on a track toward global annihilation (As I stated before...doomsday scenarios are, without exception idiotic. Any time you see someone spouting off crap indicating doomsday scenarios, take them with a grain of salt), water vapor would have done so long, long, long ago, simply by the hourly changes in concentration. The humidity changes by midday? Stay indoors, 2012 is about to happen.

CO2 on the other hand, accounts for an absolutely minuscule part of the atmosphere by comparison, absorbs far less radiation than water vapor does...it is not a worry. It makes up for a stronger, and even a majority of the greenhouse effect in higher layers of the atmosphere...but these layers also play a relatively unimportant role in the greenhouse effect.

CO2, simply put, is not pollution. Commercial growers deliberately generate CO2 and increase its levels in agricultural greenhouses to increase productivity and water efficiency of food crops. This is FAR less than what crops can produce in the atmosphere, which, relative to the kinds of concentrations in these greenhouses, is practically starved of CO2. Increase efficiency of a tree farm, you have less pressure to cut into old-growth forests. More water-efficient plants? Slows the encroaching growth of deserts all over the world. If this is "pollution," it's one Mother Nature exploits incredibly well for benefit.

Even the IPCC, whom I would debate the objectivity of, claims humans are only responsible for 3.4% of CO2 production. All other sources are natural, and taken care of by natural CO2 sinks. Half of these artificial emissions are unaccounted for, presuming to vanish into these natural "sinks" as well. That leaves us with, let's see...adding a WHOPPING 1.7% of CO2 that cannot be absorbed by natural means, and is slowed by the greenhouse effect from entering space.

Media is also guilty of pushing CO2 emissions as though their effect is linear, when it is not. It is logarithmic. Think of adding a second set of blinds to your windows - yeah, it makes it darker, but not by a lot. Since CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas (duh), and most of CO2's absorption spectrum overlaps with other atmospheric greenhouse gasses (oxygen and water vapor most prominently) there are diminishing returns as you keep adding more. If we wanted to double the effect of "global warming" since the industrial revolution, by CO2 alone, we'd likely have to increase atmospheric concentrations well beyond the point where they'd be TOXIC. (6,000ppm, by volume iirc).

Most global warming models presume CO2 is preferentially absorbing a third or more of available energy, but that's preposterous. Given the insanely high prevalence of water vapor compared to CO2, that's horrendously unrealistic, given that both water vapor and CO2 absorb most of the same radiation spectrum. Not to mention the bands where CO2 is active are already at or NEAR saturation - adding more will do precious little, since there is very little radiation left over to absorb for extra CO2.

The big global warming predictions come not from observed measurements (which seem to indicate the earth is cooling down as of late), but from computer models. Predictions of what will happen in another thirty years, from only thirty years of accurately recorded data (the 1980's is when we began to consistently record satellite data from outside the earth's atmosphere, eliminating as much locational bias as possible).

The ground stations are horrendously biased toward the Northern Hemisphere, and many are not installed correctly - being affected by multiple heat biases. Even if we were strictly making inferences based on these measurements...the data is flawed. I had someone try to tell me "well, they just adjust for that, then." Really? Grasping at straws much? They can go back and accurate adjust thousands of units of data for heat bias based on general observation of weather in a general area, accounting for cloud cover, heat-reflective surfaces like asphalt, and other possible things which might flaw the data? This isn't data that is being manipulated predictably, in the same amount - it's chaotic manipulation, without pattern. A station being affected by a heat bias is not necessarily being affected by the same heat bias every day.

Regardless, it is bad science to use flawed data. It isn't simply "made okay" because you made reasonable assumptions and manipulated the data according to that.
 

racer

Est. Contributor
Messages
649
Role
  1. Other
I cant believe the pure ignorence of the people replying to me, you dont want to have a debate, so you gang and throw insults at me, calling my family barbaric, cannibalistic, saying I am a environmentalist, and must belong to PETA, calling me a idiot. I didnt call anyone here any names, or insult anyone, so I would appreciate the same treatment.
Put your attitude to the side, and pick up a darn book every once in awhile. Your free to say all the well known science and theory is junk, but I dont appreciate people just throwing insults at me just because they dont agree with it
 

Draugr

Est. Contributor
Messages
502
Role
  1. Adult Baby
  2. Diaper Lover
  3. Diaperfur
  4. Incontinent
You and everyone else have a VERY different idea of what "well known science" is. Your seems to be based in public perception & media...not actual science.
 
Messages
2,395
Role
  1. Private
I cant believe the pure ignorence of the people replying to me, you dont want to have a debate, so you gang and throw insults at me, calling my family barbaric, cannibalistic, saying I am a environmentalist, and must belong to PETA, calling me a idiot. I didnt call anyone here any names, or insult anyone, so I would appreciate the same treatment.
Put your attitude to the side, and pick up a darn book every once in awhile. Your free to say all the well known science and theory is junk, but I dont appreciate people just throwing insults at me just because they dont agree with it

If your personal family has killed and eaten people, they're cannibals.

If your personal family has favored nomadic moving over staying and figuring out natural philosophy (and bending her to best serve), they're barbarians.

Otherwise, you'd best be served by going back and actually reading what I wrote. There is also a question in there for you that IS up for discussion--I have laid out a counter to your original premise, and await your response.

I don't know about the rest of the items, but you are arguing from emotion rather than reason at this point. I take it that you are now making the claim--through use of "family"--that you are of indian descent. Great, but now you pick up a book and see what people of all sorts have done to each other over time. I don't really have time to go into it now, but your use of "family" in this way is appalling and misleading--unless you have relatives who have lived for 500 years still hanging out with you and heading to the ol' Walmart every so often.

I really must wonder at this point if you are confusing "history," "reason," or "accuracy" for the 1978 PSA on littering.

By the way, the items that I have responded to have nothing to do with personal opinion. It is the fact that you are wrong that compels me to write things that might seem to run counter to your beliefs, wishes, desires, or emotions. I cannot speak for what anyone else wrote, but it is this same wrong-headed indignation that you have displayed that discredits anything you pose here. I think you'll find reason and willingness to learn a good protection against the "pure ignorence" [sic] that you feel.

Also by the way, whomever talked about ground stations (I skimmed; I think the gist was, "these are giving inaccurate readings and aren't in spec.") is correct--they are typically found by roadways now (a big no-no) and are therefore naturally reporting higher temperatures. Does this mean that we're about to enter a period of Global Cooling (thanks, 1970s)? No, but it does mean that one way we're measuring things has introduced bias into the data. Go "pick up a darn book" and you'll see this is true.
 

babibear

Est. Contributor
Messages
381
Role
  1. Private
Our local trash company uses trucks powered by natural gas. I guess that's better for the environment than diesel.

At one point around here they were experimenting with biodiesels, combining the odor of the trash with a faint scent of doughnuts or french fries. :smile1:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top