Biodegradable supermarket bags

[John Silver]

We hoard supermarket bags in the knowledge that one day we will have to
pay for them. I put some spare computer and TV leads into a Sainsbury's
one for future use and stuck it in the back of a cupboard. When I went
to it the other day it disintegrated as I picked it up.
I delved into our sack of bags to look for a strong one and my hand came
out covered in tiny bits of Tesco plastic bag material. Going through
the bag three had disintegrated and created much debris as I transferred
the rest to another sack.
Next task was to vacuum the hall floor:-) So Tesco and Sainsbury's are
true to their word that the bags are biodegradable. I can't say the same
yet for Morrison, Co-Op, Iceland or Waitrose.
John

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by John Silver

Post by John Silver
So Tesco and Sainsbury's are
true to their word that the bags are biodegradable. I can't say the same
yet for Morrison, Co-Op, Iceland or Waitrose.

Ocado, you give them back for recycling

[Jane Gillett]

Post by John Silver
We hoard supermarket bags in the knowledge that one day we will have to
pay for them. I put some spare computer and TV leads into a Sainsbury's
one for future use and stuck it in the back of a cupboard. When I went
to it the other day it disintegrated as I picked it up.
I delved into our sack of bags to look for a strong one and my hand came
out covered in tiny bits of Tesco plastic bag material. Going through
the bag three had disintegrated and created much debris as I transferred
the rest to another sack.
Next task was to vacuum the hall floor:-) So Tesco and Sainsbury's are
true to their word that the bags are biodegradable. I can't say the same
yet for Morrison, Co-Op, Iceland or Waitrose.
John

Well, what do we <know> from this experience - which I can agree with from
my own experience although precisely <which> shop(s) I got the bags from I
don't know.

We know that the bag becomes brittle and breaks into small pieces. However,
it doesn't tell us what the small pieces consist of; in particular, whether
the polymer has actually started to break down. This is important because
when these small pieces, powder even, are in the sea they are eaten by the
smallest organisms (plankton), which in turn are eaten by larger organisms
and so on up the food chain to the larger animals which we eat and unless
the actual polymer has broken down by that time into something we and the
environment can deal with we are eating whatever version of the polymer the
modern chemical industry is currently producing.

Not only that. I did a quick google search on words
"cornstarch plastic bags degrade"
and that brought up a useful range of possibilities which I have yet to go
through. Just "biodegrable" as keyword was less useful.

I read that there is a variety of plastics in use and hence many ways and
results of the resulting biodegration, some of which give products which
are not good for us. France appears to have a recognised standard which can
be printed on appropriate products but I haven't found one for
anything/anyone else yet.

Thanks for raising an important topic which has many important aspects.

Cheers
Jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
We know that the bag becomes brittle and breaks into small pieces. However,
it doesn't tell us what the small pieces consist of; i

the "right" thing to do is get a set of reusables, they are called
"shopping bags". Everybody used to have them. Waitrose make a range
that fold flat and a set of four fill a trolley. If the shops used
brown papers bags and the govt said they must charge for them we would
solve the whole thing.I wonder if UKIP has a policy on this? Almost
certainly not as I see they want to cancel wind power and go for coal.
:-(

[John Silver]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
We know that the bag becomes brittle and breaks into small pieces. However,
it doesn't tell us what the small pieces consist of; i

the "right" thing to do is get a set of reusables, they are called
"shopping bags". Everybody used to have them. Waitrose make a range
that fold flat and a set of four fill a trolley. If the shops used
brown papers bags and the govt said they must charge for them we would
solve the whole thing.I wonder if UKIP has a policy on this? Almost
certainly not as I see they want to cancel wind power and go for coal.
:-(

We use reusable bags when doing our main shopping but most days do some
casual shopping.
We are sitting on an island of coal and have trillions of tons under the
sea that can now be retrieved. Lets use it and get rid of the expensive
unsightly propellers.
John

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by John Silver

Post by John Silver
We are sitting on an island of coal and have trillions of tons under the
sea that can now be retrieved. Lets use it and get rid of the expensive
unsightly propellers.

and produce masses of carbon, wonderful idea.

[John Silver]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by John Silver

Post by John Silver
We are sitting on an island of coal and have trillions of tons under the
sea that can now be retrieved. Lets use it and get rid of the expensive
unsightly propellers.

and produce masses of carbon, wonderful idea.

We need to compete with China, India,the USA and others who still use
coal fired power stations.
Do you have wind powered turbines near you or would you be a NIMBY?
We really do need to get Fracking. Just look how American users costs
have come down.
John

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by John Silver

Post by John Silver

Post by Mike.. . . .
and produce masses of carbon, wonderful idea.

We need to compete with China, India,the USA and others who still use
coal fired power stations.

nice race to the bottom then.

Post by John Silver
Do you have wind powered turbines near you or would you be a NIMBY?

nope

Post by John Silver
We really do need to get Fracking. Just look how American users costs
have come down.

US has a lot of empty places. We don't.

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Mike.. . . .

Post by John Silver
Do you have wind powered turbines near you or would you be a NIMBY?

nope

My concerns over turbines are when they spoil wonderful landscapes or
interfere with wildlife, my concerns over coal are that we might well
end up with landscapes under water. But as nobody seems likely to do
anything much about it on world scale, probably not worth bothering,
just let everything get *****, I won't be around and the human race
probably deserves it and UKIP.

[Jane Gillett]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by John Silver

Post by John Silver

Post by Mike.. . . .
and produce masses of carbon, wonderful idea.

We need to compete with China, India,the USA and others who still use
coal fired power stations.

nice race to the bottom then.

Guess it's just another example of evolution. Natural selection is by
optimising the number of your offspring which immediately reach a
practicable breeding stage; where a species has requirements which drain
local resources and the number/capacity to seriously damage or deplete
local quantities it will continue to use them to an extent which actually
reduces its survival chances longterm. Add to that our power and political
inclinations and then the ability our intelligence has given us to
manipulate our environment and we have the ability to seriously threaten
the environment which supports us. The remaining question is "Do we have
the wisdom" to handle it without adversely affecting our future?

IMV there's no reason to think we have.

This is not a final stage of achievement of evolution**; neither the planet
or the species (us or any other) is going to stop changing. If the race to
the bottom is going to happen then it will, changing the earth's condition
if appropriate on the way. We're part of an on-going sequence and I can't
see us stopping either the sequence or our effect on it.

To the future?
Jane

**Although most religions seem to assume that Man is the final peak of Gods
creation. We're just one species, ok AFAIK unique, but still just a species
which has cropped up along the way and the way will continue in some "way"
or other with or without us provided we've allowed the earth to remain in a
single piece.

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
nice race to the bottom then.

Guess it's just another example of evolution. Natural selection is by
optimising the number of your offspring which immediately reach a
practicable breeding stage; where a species has requirements which drain
local resources and the number/capacity to seriously damage or deplete
local quantities it will continue to use them to an extent which actually
reduces its survival chances longterm. Add to that our power and political
inclinations and then the ability our intelligence has given us to
manipulate our environment and we have the ability to seriously threaten
the environment which supports us. The remaining question is "Do we have
the wisdom" to handle it without adversely affecting our future?

A minority see the problem but our economic model relies on growth and
we now also have to contend with popularist politics that cannot see
beyond its nose beyond a few long overdue reforms that most everybody
wants but no "sensible" politician (including EU ones) will listen to
(immigration/EU). China etc will not stop developing. A few windmills
are neither here nor there, we could save more carbon by not building
HS2 or banning long haul beach holidays (local beaches are available)!
The BRIC countries say they are not stopping development, you caused
the problem. The USA is unlikely to do anything given they designed a
political system unable to achieve anything much without a serious
outside threat to unite them, they cannot even control guns!

Post by Jane Gillett
IMV there's no reason to think we have.
This is not a final stage of achievement of evolution**; neither the planet
or the species (us or any other) is going to stop changing. If the race to
the bottom is going to happen then it will, changing the earth's condition
if appropriate on the way. We're part of an on-going sequence and I can't
see us stopping either the sequence or our effect on it.

science might find a technical fix if we diverted all windmil/sticking
plaster/empty gesture funding to the universities etc for research.

Post by Jane Gillett
**Although most religions seem to assume that Man is the final peak of Gods
creation. We're just one species, ok AFAIK unique, but still just a species
which has cropped up along the way and the way will continue in some "way"
or other with or without us provided we've allowed the earth to remain in a
single piece.

what religion says is irrelevant, it knows nothing of any higher
forces that might possibly exist. Its only any good for supressing new
ideas like female equality.

we are probably all fracked!

[Jane Gillett]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
nice race to the bottom then.

Until somebody hits the "off switch" on this

<snip>

The remaining question is "Do we have

Post by Mike.. . . .

the wisdom" to handle it without adversely affecting our future?

A minority see the problem but our economic model relies on growth and
we now also have to contend with popularist politics that cannot see
beyond its nose beyond a few long overdue reforms that most everybody
wants but no "sensible" politician (including EU ones) will listen to
(immigration/EU).

What particular things do you have in mind?

Post by Mike.. . . .
China etc will not stop developing. A few windmills
are neither here nor there, we could save more carbon by not building
HS2 or banning long haul beach holidays (local beaches are available)!

Yes. But I don't see why <beach> holidays should be demonised particularly.
Anything in another country that you do just because you like it counts the
same IMV. And such beachgoers would contend that the weather is better and
the drink is cheaper and I couldn't argue with either!

Post by Mike.. . . .
The BRIC countries say they are not stopping development, you caused
the problem. The USA is unlikely to do anything given they designed a
political system unable to achieve anything much without a serious
outside threat to unite them, they cannot even control guns!

Do US want to? Seriously, does your actual US citizen really want to ban
guns? Guisi? On the general subject we as a species are unlikely to change
anything we find convenient merely to improve the condition of the world.
We're just one of the selection factors in a natural selection process.

<snip>

Post by Mike.. . . .

This is not a final stage of achievement of evolution**; neither the planet
or the species (us or any other) is going to stop changing. If the race to
the bottom is going to happen then it will, changing the earth's condition
if appropriate on the way. We're part of an on-going sequence and I can't
see us stopping either the sequence or our effect on it.

science might find a technical fix if we diverted all windmil/sticking
plaster/empty gesture funding to the universities etc for research.

We won't IMO. <IF> you could get the West to divert its resources which is
very unlikely, you still ahve to convince the developing nations and they
have made their position clear. While the "leaders" (those with power and
influence) make most out of "progress" then that's what we'll get. We do
get individual exercises which lead to significant improvements from time
to time - end of largescale slavery in the West, London streets are no
longer sewers and Martin Luther King will justifiably be remembered - but I
can't see the earth's condition being considered unless it's convenient to
do so; we'll just use it as benefits the more influencial amongst us beit
China/India or the local/multinational industrialist/financier.

<snip>

Post by Mike.. . . .
what religion says is irrelevant, it knows nothing of any higher
forces that might possibly exist.

Neither do any of us and I feel we are probably incapable of understanding
the universe - at least, I see no reason why we <should> assume we have all
the necessary ability. I can't say that religions' "take" on the universe
is any less valid than mine.

Post by Mike.. . . .
Its only any good for supressing new
ideas like female equality.

Another example of human rulers (men) "maintaining" rules to do what
benefits their situation. Mohamet (sp) treated women as equal people
AFAIAA. Don't know about other faiths - other than the CoE heirarchy which
seems to be having a bit of a sort out ATM.

Post by Mike.. . . .
we are probably all fracked!

Quite possibly but probably not all of us. It's natural selection and we're
just providing part of it as other species have for them. We're only a
temporary phase, not the climax or apex of evolution, just a minor stage
along one branch and the branch will continue beyond <current> human form.
Evolution will modify us and our environment although it would probably
have been in a somewhat longer timescale without our intellectual
development.
Cheers
Jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
A minority see the problem but our economic model relies on growth and
we now also have to contend with popularist politics that cannot see
beyond its nose beyond a few long overdue reforms that most everybody
wants but no "sensible" politician (including EU ones) will listen to
(immigration/EU).

What particular things do you have in mind?

most people want reform of EU and an immigration policy geared to our
needs, that means indian programmers, not Latvian window cleaners or
Pakistani dubious clerics.

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
China etc will not stop developing. A few windmills
are neither here nor there, we could save more carbon by not building
HS2 or banning long haul beach holidays (local beaches are available)!

Yes. But I don't see why <beach> holidays should be demonised particularly.
Anything in another country that you do just because you like it counts the
same IMV. And such beachgoers would contend that the weather is better and
the drink is cheaper and I couldn't argue with either!

the weather isnt better and the drinks are only marginally cheaper
than the cheap drinks nearer. It's competition on trophy holidays and
the vertically integrated long haul beach prison camps often do not
help the local economy. Surely theres a difference between laying on a
different beach with a slightly cheaper drink and producing tons of
carbon and going there because you want to learn some cultural thing?
Thinga are not of equal value becausde people "like" them.

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
The BRIC countries say they are not stopping development, you caused
the problem. The USA is unlikely to do anything given they designed a
political system unable to achieve anything much without a serious
outside threat to unite them, they cannot even control guns!

Do US want to? Seriously, does your actual US citizen really want to ban
guns? Guisi?
On the general subject we as a species are unlikely to change
anything we find convenient merely to improve the condition of the world.
We're just one of the selection factors in a natural selection process.

whats convenient about a high murder rate?

Post by Jane Gillett
<snip>

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
This is not a final stage of achievement of evolution**; neither the planet
or the species (us or any other) is going to stop changing. If the race to
the bottom is going to happen then it will, changing the earth's condition
if appropriate on the way. We're part of an on-going sequence and I can't
see us stopping either the sequence or our effect on it.

science might find a technical fix if we diverted all windmil/sticking
plaster/empty gesture funding to the universities etc for research.

We won't IMO. <IF> you could get the West to divert its resources which is
very unlikely,

not so unlikely, the FT is calling for it

Post by Jane Gillett
you still ahve to convince the developing nations and they
have made their position clear.

not really, the west can go it alone.

Post by Jane Gillett
While the "leaders" (those with power and
influence) make most out of "progress" then that's what we'll get. We do
get individual exercises which lead to significant improvements from time
to time - end of largescale slavery in the West, London streets are no
longer sewers and Martin Luther King will justifiably be remembered - but I
can't see the earth's condition being considered unless it's convenient to
do so; we'll just use it as benefits the more influencial amongst us beit
China/India or the local/multinational industrialist/financier.
<snip>

Post by Mike.. . . .
what religion says is irrelevant, it knows nothing of any higher
forces that might possibly exist.

Neither do any of us and I feel we are probably incapable of understanding
the universe - at least, I see no reason why we <should> assume we have all
the necessary ability. I can't say that religions' "take" on the universe
is any less valid than mine.

its invalid because it states things are true that it cannot know, it
is therefore rubbish. You just say you dont know.

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
Its only any good for supressing new
ideas like female equality.

Another example of human rulers (men) "maintaining" rules to do what
benefits their situation. Mohamet (sp) treated women as equal people
AFAIAA. Don't know about other faiths - other than the CoE heirarchy which
seems to be having a bit of a sort out ATM.

It doesnt really matter what the founder said, its all about what
adherents do in its name. Christ said give away your money and be a
pacifist, the US christian religious right like money and guns.
Religion does not actually give moral guidance as they all pick and
choos what they feel like doing, parts of islam think they are
stopping evil by killing apostates, catholics, jews and protestants
have regularly killed one another over the small print in the past.
However, the current thing in the heradlines, horrific honour
killings, rapes and matricides in Pakistan, largely unpunished, are
more a culture of regarding women as mere possessions and not really
about islam.

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
we are probably all fracked!

Quite possibly but probably not all of us. It's natural selection and we're
just providing part of it as other species have for them. We're only a
temporary phase, not the climax or apex of evolution, just a minor stage
along one branch and the branch will continue beyond <current> human form.
Evolution will modify us and our environment although it would probably
have been in a somewhat longer timescale without our intellectual
development.

I tend to work within the constraint of the human race surviviing.

[Jane Gillett]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

<thanks>

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
China etc will not stop developing. A few windmills
are neither here nor there, we could save more carbon by not building
HS2 or banning long haul beach holidays (local beaches are available)!

Yes. But I don't see why <beach> holidays should be demonised particularly.
Anything in another country that you do just because you like it counts the
same IMV. And such beachgoers would contend that the weather is better and
the drink is cheaper and I couldn't argue with either!

the weather isnt better

More reliably sunny than UK I think.

Post by Mike.. . . .
and the drinks are only marginally cheaper
than the cheap drinks nearer.

Nearer than where? Less alcohol duty?

Post by Mike.. . . .
It's competition on trophy holidays and
the vertically integrated long haul beach prison camps often do not
help the local economy.

Quite possibly.

Post by Mike.. . . .
Surely theres a difference between laying on a
different beach with a slightly cheaper drink and producing tons of
carbon and going there because you want to learn some cultural thing?
Thinga are not of equal value becausde people "like" them.

I would base the distinction on whether there is an apparent benefit to
some part of the living system by your journey.

<snip>

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
On the general subject we as a species are unlikely to change
anything we find convenient merely to improve the condition of the world.
We're just one of the selection factors in a natural selection process.

whats convenient about a high murder rate?

I should have said "the world of those in control". You can't take a single
factor in isolation. If it enhances either the level of control or the
financial position then that's justification to those in power.

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
<snip>

Post by Mike.. . . .
science might find a technical fix if we diverted all windmil/sticking
plaster/empty gesture funding to the universities etc for research.

We won't IMO. <IF> you could get the West to divert its resources which is
very unlikely,

not so unlikely, the FT is calling for it

Does the Financial Times have THAT much power? I'm shocked.

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
you still ahve to convince the developing nations and they
have made their position clear.

not really, the west can go it alone.

(a) Only for a very short time if we sacrifice any competitive power;
(b) Reduced CO2 reduction cf world cooperation; maybe less than we could
envisage if it allows the "third world" power groups to simply take over
western CO2 producing activites.

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
<snip>

Post by Mike.. . . .
what religion says is irrelevant, it knows nothing of any higher
forces that might possibly exist.

Neither do any of us and I feel we are probably incapable of understanding
the universe - at least, I see no reason why we <should> assume we have all
the necessary ability. I can't say that religions' "take" on the universe
is any less valid than mine.

its invalid because it states things are true that it cannot know, it
is therefore rubbish. You just say you dont know.

What do we <know>? All we know is how things appear to behave as far as our
senses and technical ability permits.
"Through a glass darkly" is a very good description AFAIAC.
I repeat I see no reason to assume we have the ability to sense everything
the universe consists of and, as a result, find it difficult to say someone
else's unbased assumptions have no more or less validity than the baseless
assumptions I make. I can take issue with <implementing> their assumptions
where they seem destructive to me; unfortunately most "religious"
assumptions have the backing of history which, while it does not add to
their validity, gives them power.

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
Its only any good for supressing new
ideas like female equality.

Another example of human rulers (men) "maintaining" rules to do what
benefits their situation. Mohamet (sp) treated women as equal people
AFAIAA. Don't know about other faiths - other than the CoE heirarchy which
seems to be having a bit of a sort out ATM.

It doesnt really matter what the founder said, its all about what
adherents do in its name.

Absolutely.

Post by Mike.. . . .
Christ said give away your money and be a
pacifist, the US christian religious right like money and guns.

Some, and not just US, UK & others too for money & power. OTOH there are
occasions when opposing money & guns seems to justify having money & guns
as nothing seems to be achievable without.

Post by Mike.. . . .
Religion does not actually give moral guidance

Is that its purpose? I thought it was population management (not in the
sense of birth control) - as is civilisation in general IMO.

Post by Mike.. . . .
However, the current thing in the heradlines, horrific honour
killings, rapes and matricides in Pakistan, largely unpunished, are
more a culture of regarding women as mere possessions and not really
about islam.

Agreed. You might be interested in reading Fatima Mernissi* "Women and
Islam" * for a general description.

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
we are probably all fracked!

Quite possibly but probably not all of us. It's natural selection

<snip>

Post by Mike.. . . .
I tend to work within the constraint of the human race surviviing.

Our birth rate and intellect will probably keep us going for some time but
I don't see "our" survival as particularly important longterm. Anyway,
future humans will not be "us" - "descent with modification" as they say.

Jane

* Female & moslem.
Google says she's a graduate sociologist at several Universities,
Arab/Eu/US.

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
the weather isnt better

More reliably sunny than UK I think.

I wasn't thinking of UK, there is loads of reliable sun in Europe, or
north Africa and the Canaries, at any month you want. Too hot
sometimes. Why people go in august to Greece and then says it was to
hot to go on the beach.....

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
and the drinks are only marginally cheaper
than the cheap drinks nearer.

Nearer than where? Less alcohol duty?

Spain is nearer than Thailand

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
not so unlikely, the FT is calling for it

Does the Financial Times have THAT much power? I'm shocked.

Its read & written by the people that matter + me

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
you still ahve to convince the developing nations and they
have made their position clear.

not really, the west can go it alone.

(a) Only for a very short time if we sacrifice any competitive power;
(b) Reduced CO2 reduction cf world cooperation; maybe less than we could
envisage if it allows the "third world" power groups to simply take over
western CO2 producing activites.

If we had a technical fix the world would suddenly stop being in
denial and adopt it.

Post by Jane Gillett
What do we <know>? All we know is how things appear to behave as far as our
senses and technical ability permits.

I'm not saying we know, I'm saying religion does not. They have a
misplaced certainly that makes their position untenable. Somebody who
insists the world was formed in a week is wrong, not because all the
science in the world says he is wrong, but because he cannot know
that. There is also masses of evidence for evolution and none at all
for the bible, why should we bend over backwards to pretend they might
be right just because we have no final, absolute proof that the
scientific view is not an illusion?

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
Religion does not actually give moral guidance

Is that its purpose?

it claims that purpose

Post by Jane Gillett
I thought it was population management (not in the
sense of birth control) - as is civilisation in general IMO.

not just that, it starts in being a way of cheating death and
explaining away a mysterious and frightening world.

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
However, the current thing in the heradlines, horrific honour
killings, rapes and matricides in Pakistan, largely unpunished, are
more a culture of regarding women as mere possessions and not really
about islam.

Agreed. You might be interested in reading Fatima Mernissi* "Women and
Islam" * for a general description.

Tx

[Jane Gillett]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
the weather isnt better

More reliably sunny than UK I think.

I wasn't thinking of UK, there is loads of reliable sun in Europe, or
north Africa and the Canaries, at any month you want. Too hot
sometimes. Why people go in august to Greece and then says it was to
hot to go on the beach.....

School holidays?

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
not so unlikely, the FT is calling for it

Does the Financial Times have THAT much power? I'm shocked.

Its read & written by the people that matter + me

Yes. If you mean people of power. Plus if I'm looking for something to
read, say while waiting for a delayed train/bus/whatever, then FT is
something I'd choose.

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett
you still ahve to convince the developing nations and they
have made their position clear.

not really, the west can go it alone.

(a) Only for a very short time if we sacrifice any competitive power;
(b) Reduced CO2 reduction cf world cooperation; maybe less than we could
envisage if it allows the "third world" power groups to simply take over
western CO2 producing activites.

If we had a technical fix the world would suddenly stop being in
denial and adopt it.

Suspect if someone with relevant power had an interest in continuing then
cases would be made to continue.

Remainder snipped and answered separately.

Jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
I wasn't thinking of UK, there is loads of reliable sun in Europe, or
north Africa and the Canaries, at any month you want. Too hot
sometimes. Why people go in august to Greece and then says it was to
hot to go on the beach.....

School holidays?

OK, but go somewhere cooler?

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
not so unlikely, the FT is calling for it

Does the Financial Times have THAT much power? I'm shocked.

Its read & written by the people that matter + me

Yes. If you mean people of power. Plus if I'm looking for something to
read, say while waiting for a delayed train/bus/whatever, then FT is
something I'd choose.

yes, people of power + me + you

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
If we had a technical fix the world would suddenly stop being in
denial and adopt it.

Suspect if someone with relevant power had an interest in continuing then
cases would be made to continue.

I think, faced with a solution that didn't involve cycling and
switching off the aircon, you would be surprised how quickly
resistance disappeared.

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
There is also masses of evidence for evolution and none at all
for the bible, why should we bend over backwards to pretend they might
be right just because we have no final, absolute proof that the
scientific view is not an illusion?

(a) The scientific view doesn't address the same question as religion. IMV
science simply asks how do things appear to behave, and, by extension,
where relevant, how does it seem they behaved in the past. Its conclusions
are open to modification with new evidence unlike religion. However, old
theories can still be useful tools in the right contexts - IAGTU that the
basis of our space exploration is still Newton.

GPS does no work without relativity.

I don't mind religion addressing spirituality, but I object to its
pretences over factual matters

(b) The religious view is powerful because of its history and hence its
position in our society. It supports individuals emotionally and helps
(helped!) communities to manage individuals' behaviour.

sometimes by burning them at the stake

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
Religion does not actually give moral guidance

Is that its purpose?

it claims that purpose

Post by Jane Gillett
I thought it was population management (not in the
sense of birth control) - as is civilisation in general IMO.

not just that, it starts in being a way of cheating death and
explaining away a mysterious and frightening world.

I suggest its main function is to get people to peacefully accept a
situation which seems patently unfair by saying that reward will come.

the "carrot" for which is everlasting life. Very convenient, isn't it?

Personally, I've seen no evidence of life after death but would not rule
out the possibility - indeed, it's interesting to speculate - since it
seems possible that if "death" is a change in sensitivity and outlook of
the individual as some believe then maybe with our current ability we could
not understand it. The explanation to children of the dragonfly nymph and
the resulting dragonfly (neither sees through the water surface - each sees
it as a life boundary) seems a good analogy.

It just seems to me that there's no rational reason (except for hope)
to speculate that the obvious does not happen (we die and rot away,
end of). Of course the Buddhists are more or less right as we sort of
reincarnate as other things sooner or later.

[Kev]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
There is also masses of evidence for evolution and none at all
for the bible, why should we bend over backwards to pretend they might
be right just because we have no final, absolute proof that the
scientific view is not an illusion?

(a) The scientific view doesn't address the same question as religion. IMV
science simply asks how do things appear to behave, and, by extension,
where relevant, how does it seem they behaved in the past. Its conclusions
are open to modification with new evidence unlike religion. However, old
theories can still be useful tools in the right contexts - IAGTU that the
basis of our space exploration is still Newton.

GPS does no work without relativity.
I don't mind religion addressing spirituality, but I object to its
pretences over factual matters

(b) The religious view is powerful because of its history and hence its
position in our society. It supports individuals emotionally and helps
(helped!) communities to manage individuals' behaviour.

sometimes by burning them at the stake

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
Religion does not actually give moral guidance

Is that its purpose?

it claims that purpose

Post by Jane Gillett
I thought it was population management (not in the
sense of birth control) - as is civilisation in general IMO.

not just that, it starts in being a way of cheating death and
explaining away a mysterious and frightening world.

I suggest its main function is to get people to peacefully accept a
situation which seems patently unfair by saying that reward will come.

the "carrot" for which is everlasting life. Very convenient, isn't it?

Personally, I've seen no evidence of life after death but would not rule
out the possibility - indeed, it's interesting to speculate - since it
seems possible that if "death" is a change in sensitivity and outlook of
the individual as some believe then maybe with our current ability we could
not understand it. The explanation to children of the dragonfly nymph and
the resulting dragonfly (neither sees through the water surface - each sees
it as a life boundary) seems a good analogy.

It just seems to me that there's no rational reason (except for hope)
to speculate that the obvious does not happen (we die and rot away,
end of). Of course the Buddhists are more or less right as we sort of
reincarnate as other things sooner or later.

Like the T shirt says

"Science is great, because its true
Whether you believe in it or not"

[graham]

Post by Kev

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
There is also masses of evidence for evolution and none at all
for the bible, why should we bend over backwards to pretend they might
be right just because we have no final, absolute proof that the
scientific view is not an illusion?

(a) The scientific view doesn't address the same question as
religion. IMV
science simply asks how do things appear to behave, and, by extension,
where relevant, how does it seem they behaved in the past. Its conclusions
are open to modification with new evidence unlike religion. However, old
theories can still be useful tools in the right contexts - IAGTU that the
basis of our space exploration is still Newton.

GPS does no work without relativity.
I don't mind religion addressing spirituality, but I object to its
pretences over factual matters

(b) The religious view is powerful because of its history and hence its
position in our society. It supports individuals emotionally and helps
(helped!) communities to manage individuals' behaviour.

sometimes by burning them at the stake

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
Religion does not actually give moral guidance

Is that its purpose?

it claims that purpose

Post by Jane Gillett
I thought it was population management (not in the
sense of birth control) - as is civilisation in general IMO.

not just that, it starts in being a way of cheating death and
explaining away a mysterious and frightening world.

I suggest its main function is to get people to peacefully accept a
situation which seems patently unfair by saying that reward will come.

the "carrot" for which is everlasting life. Very convenient, isn't it?

Personally, I've seen no evidence of life after death but would not rule
out the possibility - indeed, it's interesting to speculate - since it
seems possible that if "death" is a change in sensitivity and outlook of
the individual as some believe then maybe with our current ability we could
not understand it. The explanation to children of the dragonfly nymph and
the resulting dragonfly (neither sees through the water surface - each sees
it as a life boundary) seems a good analogy.

It just seems to me that there's no rational reason (except for hope)
to speculate that the obvious does not happen (we die and rot away,
end of). Of course the Buddhists are more or less right as we sort of
reincarnate as other things sooner or later.

Like the T shirt says
"Science is great, because its true
Whether you believe in it or not"

I prefer Victor Stenger: "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies
you into buildings!"
Graham

[Jane Gillett]

Post by graham

Post by Kev

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

<Snip>

Post by graham

Post by Kev

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Mike.. . . .

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
Religion does not actually give moral guidance

Is that its purpose?

it claims that purpose

Post by Jane Gillett
I thought it was population management (not in the
sense of birth control) - as is civilisation in general IMO.

not just that, it starts in being a way of cheating death and
explaining away a mysterious and frightening world.

I suggest its main function is to get people to peacefully accept a
situation which seems patently unfair by saying that reward will come.

the "carrot" for which is everlasting life. Very convenient, isn't it?

Well chosen for purpose.

Post by graham

Post by Kev

Post by Mike.. . . .

Personally, I've seen no evidence of life after death but would not rule
out the possibility - indeed, it's interesting to speculate - since it
seems possible that if "death" is a change in sensitivity and outlook of
the individual as some believe then maybe with our current ability we could
not understand it. The explanation to children of the dragonfly nymph and
the resulting dragonfly (neither sees through the water surface - each sees
it as a life boundary) seems a good analogy.

It just seems to me that there's no rational reason (except for hope)
to speculate that the obvious does not happen (we die and rot away,
end of).

No rational reason to believe it or deny it IME. Scientifically all we can
say is that we have no way of addressing it ATM.

Post by graham

Post by Kev

Post by Mike.. . . .
Of course the Buddhists are more or less right as we sort of
reincarnate as other things sooner or later.

Yep. Nice to think my substance might become an oak tree. Don't want
cremation. What "I" is may be another matter!

Post by graham

Post by Kev
Like the T shirt says
"Science is great, because its true
Whether you believe in it or not"

I prefer Victor Stenger: "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies
you into buildings!"
Graham

Like both.
Have you looked at the work done on double slit experiment and experimenter
effect?

CHeers
JAne

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
It just seems to me that there's no rational reason (except for hope)
to speculate that the obvious does not happen (we die and rot away,
end of).

No rational reason to believe it or deny it IME. Scientifically all we can
say is that we have no way of addressing it ATM.

science cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster either, I do not
accept its existence because there is on evidence and its obvious
somebody just made it up. I feel the same way with all religion.

On a more general afterlife I see nobody suggesting an afterlife for
sunflowers, pilchards or bacteria, as there is zero evidence for an
afterlife, I dismiss it as wishful thinking. I think, just because
religion claims things that cannot ever be disproved on the evidence
of nothing and is sometimes willing to kill over it, I think its
giving too much leeway to say we might not know or could never know. I
think we should say its highly unlikely at minimum.

[Tim C.]

Post by Mike.. . . .
science cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster either, I do not
accept its existence because there is on evidence and its obvious
somebody just made it up. I feel the same way with all religion.

+1

[David B]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
It just seems to me that there's no rational reason (except for hope)
to speculate that the obvious does not happen (we die and rot away,
end of).

No rational reason to believe it or deny it IME. Scientifically all we can
say is that we have no way of addressing it ATM.

science cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster either, I do not
accept its existence because there is on evidence and its obvious
somebody just made it up. I feel the same way with all religion.
On a more general afterlife I see nobody suggesting an afterlife for
sunflowers, pilchards or bacteria, as there is zero evidence for an
afterlife, I dismiss it as wishful thinking. I think, just because
religion claims things that cannot ever be disproved on the evidence
of nothing and is sometimes willing to kill over it, I think its
giving too much leeway to say we might not know or could never know. I
think we should say its highly unlikely at minimum.

I think you'll find it's somewhat less likely than that!

[Giusi]

Post by Mike.. . . .
US has a lot of empty places. We don't.
--
Mike... . . . .

And the US has thousands whose water sources are irretrievable.

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Giusi

Post by Giusi
And the US has thousands whose water sources are irretrievable.

yes, I've read that's a big problem. If that happens with big empty
spaces, what happens on tiny offshore island?

[Jane Gillett]

Post by John Silver

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
We know that the bag becomes brittle and breaks into small pieces. However,
it doesn't tell us what the small pieces consist of; i

the "right" thing to do is get a set of reusables, they are called
"shopping bags". Everybody used to have them. Waitrose make a range
that fold flat and a set of four fill a trolley. If the shops used
brown papers bags and the govt said they must charge for them we would
solve the whole thing.I wonder if UKIP has a policy on this? Almost
certainly not as I see they want to cancel wind power and go for coal.
:-(

We use reusable bags when doing our main shopping but most days do some
casual shopping.
We are sitting on an island of coal and have trillions of tons under the
sea that can now be retrieved. Lets use it and get rid of the expensive
unsightly propellers.
John

We know when we are going out to do any significant amount of shopping and
take our "permanent" shopping bags with us. I keep a thin foldup shopping
bag er-"foldedup" in my handbag - takes very little room and does for
casual shopping. And, I admit, I do get a few smkt bags from time to time
as they are a good fit for my kitchen rubbish bin.

Coal. Well, those who attribute current global warming to CO2 will not want
to burn more coal but then again, you get CO2 from burning oil so maybe
it's not so different if you have well designed burning units. An important
difference may be the comparative amounts of methane you produce alongside
the CO2 as that's a more effective greenhouse gas, IAGTU.
Coming from a miner's family in the Rhondda I am aware that coal mining is
not a nice environment for anyone to work in. It would probably be
different now from the type of mines which existed when Maggie killed the
mining industry - maybe more open-cast than pits; ISTR open-cast mines
(quarry-type) were disliked then because of increased dust threat to the
workers but perhaps protective clothing would overcome that one. How would
we distribute the coal to households and industry?

Cheers
jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
maybe more open-cast than pits;

not likely under the sea

Post by Jane Gillett
ISTR open-cast mines
(quarry-type) were disliked then because of increased dust threat to the
workers but perhaps protective clothing would overcome that one. How would
we distribute the coal to households and industry?

I think you do that with cables, the coal goes to power stations.

[John Silver]

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by John Silver

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
We know that the bag becomes brittle and breaks into small pieces. However,
it doesn't tell us what the small pieces consist of; i

the "right" thing to do is get a set of reusables, they are called
"shopping bags". Everybody used to have them. Waitrose make a range
that fold flat and a set of four fill a trolley. If the shops used
brown papers bags and the govt said they must charge for them we would
solve the whole thing.I wonder if UKIP has a policy on this? Almost
certainly not as I see they want to cancel wind power and go for coal.
:-(

We use reusable bags when doing our main shopping but most days do some
casual shopping.
We are sitting on an island of coal and have trillions of tons under the
sea that can now be retrieved. Lets use it and get rid of the expensive
unsightly propellers.
John

We know when we are going out to do any significant amount of shopping and
take our "permanent" shopping bags with us. I keep a thin foldup shopping
bag er-"foldedup" in my handbag - takes very little room and does for
casual shopping. And, I admit, I do get a few smkt bags from time to time
as they are a good fit for my kitchen rubbish bin.
Coal. Well, those who attribute current global warming to CO2 will not want
to burn more coal but then again, you get CO2 from burning oil so maybe
it's not so different if you have well designed burning units. An important
difference may be the comparative amounts of methane you produce alongside
the CO2 as that's a more effective greenhouse gas, IAGTU.
Coming from a miner's family in the Rhondda I am aware that coal mining is
not a nice environment for anyone to work in. It would probably be
different now from the type of mines which existed when Maggie killed the
mining industry - maybe more open-cast than pits; ISTR open-cast mines
(quarry-type) were disliked then because of increased dust threat to the
workers but perhaps protective clothing would overcome that one. How would
we distribute the coal to households and industry?
Cheers
jane

Bring back the trains?
Derek

[Jane Gillett]

<omitted>

How would

Post by John Silver

Post by Jane Gillett
we distribute the coal to households and industry?
Cheers
jane

Bring back the trains?
Derek

Steam engines?
Jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by John Silver
Bring back the trains?
Derek

Steam engines?

now I like a steam engine, thank you for not calling it a steam train,
so irritating that. I reckon we could sell the ridiculous HS2 to the
public as a preserved steam line, fantastic! We still have several A4
pacifics including "Mallard".(what a naff name for the fastest steam
loco) we could build some more, probably get an EU heritage grant.
I'll be the driver, you can stoke, I'll let you blow the whistle now
and again. We would have Pullman coaches and a dining car with bar,
where Farage can do photo calls, grinning and drinking pints of Olde
Engerland.

[Jane Gillett]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by John Silver
Bring back the trains?
Derek

Steam engines?

now I like a steam engine, thank you for not calling it a steam train,
so irritating that. I reckon we could sell the ridiculous HS2 to the
public as a preserved steam line, fantastic!

I'd be surprised if steam engines could achieve the speed predicted for HS2
and the line would cause just as much disruption but maybe that could throw
some light on whether we <really> need this "fast service" for just a few
people. But it's another thing HMGovt is probably immoveable on.

Post by Mike.. . . .
We still have several A4
pacifics including "Mallard".(what a naff name for the fastest steam
loco) we could build some more, probably get an EU heritage grant.
I'll be the driver, you can stoke,

Gee thanks Pal - have some respect for my age (as in my back) will you!

Post by Mike.. . . .
I'll let you blow the whistle now
and again. We would have Pullman coaches and a dining car with bar,

Now that's more to my taste...
Mind you, I couldn't afford the fare.

Post by Mike.. . . .
where Farage can do photo calls, grinning and drinking pints of Olde
Engerland.

Guess he could afford it - business expense?

I used to go to school on trains pulled by steam engines (text carefully
chosen as it's important to you). We were very put out when they changed to
diesel; they didn't get delayed to anything like the same extent by bad
weather and we used to enjoy crowding around a roaring coal fire on Cardiff
General station (that's what it used to be called) waiting for our train to
turn up in the steam era.

Jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
now I like a steam engine, thank you for not calling it a steam train,
so irritating that. I reckon we could sell the ridiculous HS2 to the
public as a preserved steam line, fantastic!

I'd be surprised if steam engines could achieve the speed predicted for HS2
and the line would cause just as much disruption but maybe that could throw
some light on whether we <really> need this "fast service" for just a few
people. But it's another thing HMGovt is probably immoveable on.

its about giving the builders, Camerons mates, expereince to sell to
China, the line is totally pointless, save a few minutes for a few
businessmen who should learn to use video conferencing more. Its
probably not that green, high speed usually means high carbon, trains
are not exempt in some magic way. Not seen numbers for that.

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
We still have several A4
pacifics including "Mallard".(what a naff name for the fastest steam
loco) we could build some more, probably get an EU heritage grant.
I'll be the driver, you can stoke,

Gee thanks Pal - have some respect for my age (as in my back) will you!

:-)

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
I'll let you blow the whistle now
and again. We would have Pullman coaches and a dining car with bar,

Now that's more to my taste...
Mind you, I couldn't afford the fare.

Post by Mike.. . . .
where Farage can do photo calls, grinning and drinking pints of Olde
Engerland.

Guess he could afford it - business expense?

He was a city trader, I doubt he's broke

Post by Jane Gillett
I used to go to school on trains pulled by steam engines (text carefully
chosen as it's important to you). We were very put out when they changed to
diesel; they didn't get delayed to anything like the same extent by bad
weather and we used to enjoy crowding around a roaring coal fire on Cardiff
General station (that's what it used to be called) waiting for our train to
turn up in the steam era.

I've never understood why trainspotting still exists post steam.

[John Silver]

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by John Silver
We hoard supermarket bags in the knowledge that one day we will have to
pay for them. I put some spare computer and TV leads into a Sainsbury's
one for future use and stuck it in the back of a cupboard. When I went
to it the other day it disintegrated as I picked it up.
I delved into our sack of bags to look for a strong one and my hand came
out covered in tiny bits of Tesco plastic bag material. Going through
the bag three had disintegrated and created much debris as I transferred
the rest to another sack.
Next task was to vacuum the hall floor:-) So Tesco and Sainsbury's are
true to their word that the bags are biodegradable. I can't say the same
yet for Morrison, Co-Op, Iceland or Waitrose.
John

Well, what do we <know> from this experience - which I can agree with from
my own experience although precisely <which> shop(s) I got the bags from I
don't know.
We know that the bag becomes brittle and breaks into small pieces. However,
it doesn't tell us what the small pieces consist of; in particular, whether
the polymer has actually started to break down. This is important because
when these small pieces, powder even, are in the sea they are eaten by the
smallest organisms (plankton), which in turn are eaten by larger organisms
and so on up the food chain to the larger animals which we eat and unless
the actual polymer has broken down by that time into something we and the
environment can deal with we are eating whatever version of the polymer the
modern chemical industry is currently producing.
Not only that. I did a quick google search on words
"cornstarch plastic bags degrade"
and that brought up a useful range of possibilities which I have yet to go
through. Just "biodegrable" as keyword was less useful.
I read that there is a variety of plastics in use and hence many ways and
results of the resulting biodegration, some of which give products which
are not good for us. France appears to have a recognised standard which can
be printed on appropriate products but I haven't found one for
anything/anyone else yet.
Thanks for raising an important topic which has many important aspects.
Cheers
Jane

Living on the coast a lot of bags and other plastics get washed up on
the beaches.
John

[Jane Gillett]

Post by John Silver
Living on the coast a lot of bags and other plastics get washed up on
the beaches.
John

Yes. Rebecca Hoskins made a BBC film years ago about the problems Hawii has
with washed-up plastics; apparently it just happens to be where the local
ocean currents deposit plastics. Apart from the major amount the Hawiian
authorities clear off certain beaches it causes problems for the local
wildlife. Albatross chicks are dying of starvation and when cut open their
guts are stuffed full of combs, disposable razors, toothbrushes and similar
plastic items which stops them taking in feeding materials. Parents have
evolved to collect floating food in the ocean and so continue to collect
only now there's a good chance of plastic which builds up in the chick
until there's no room for anything else. many chicks who make it to the
beach and into the sea find they can't fly and either make it back to land
to die on the beach or drown. Sorry, a private hobbyhorse.
Jane

[Jane Gillett]

Post by John Silver
Living on the coast a lot of bags and other plastics get washed up on
the beaches.
John

Not only back on to beaches, the amount of plastic floating where the
currents take it in the ocean is building significantly, large amount in
the Pacific and building in the Atlantic.
For more info google for gyre plastic ocean.
There's speculation from time to time about dragging it together to make
floating islands. WOnder who would own them and what sort of coastal-waters
rights they could aquire. Also would they be a shipping hazard in bad
weather? Normal land tends to stay in one place so you know where it is -
well, in the short term anyway. Pangeia anyone?
Jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
WOnder who would own them and what sort of coastal-waters
rights they could aquire

Stick a flag in it and its yours, that's how all the other places got
owned.

[Jane Gillett]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
WOnder who would own them and what sort of coastal-waters
rights they could aquire

Stick a flag in it and its yours, that's how all the other places got
owned.

Thinks...... what area of ocean would be politically useful and why aren't
we doing it?
Jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
Stick a flag in it and its yours, that's how all the other places got
owned.

Thinks...... what area of ocean would be politically useful and why aren't
we doing it?

China won't let us. We could form an alliance of all the old warring
but now sophisticated European countries and call it "fortress
Europe". Just a thought.

[Jane Gillett]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
Stick a flag in it and its yours, that's how all the other places got
owned.

Thinks...... what area of ocean would be politically useful and why aren't
we doing it?

China won't let us. We could form an alliance of all the old warring
but now sophisticated European countries and call it "fortress
Europe". Just a thought.

Perhaps we could avoid "fighting talk" and just call it "EU territory".
Would Swiss and Norwegians be allowed to live there or would they need
passports. E.Ukraine would presumeably be included until they officially
join Russia. Sewerage shouldn't be a problem but I guess we'd have to build
docks and a runway. Would being blown into somebody's coastal waters be
tantamount to declaration of war? Would <landfill> plastic waste aquire a
new meaning?
Jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
Would being blown into somebody's coastal waters be
tantamount to declaration of war?

might need an anchor?

[Jane Gillett]

Post by Mike.. . . .
Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett
Would being blown into somebody's coastal waters be
tantamount to declaration of war?

might need an anchor?

Bit of a long anchor chain?
Jane

[Mike.. . . .]

Following a post by Jane Gillett

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by Mike.. . . .
might need an anchor?

Bit of a long anchor chain?

daisy chain black bin bags?

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

Post by John Silver
So Tesco and Sainsbury's are
true to their word that the bags are biodegradable. I can't say the same
yet for Morrison, Co-Op, Iceland or Waitrose.
John

In general "free" bags are biodegradable.

Steve

[Giusi]

Post by John Silver
We hoard supermarket bags in the knowledge that one day we will have to
pay for them. I put some spare computer and TV leads into a Sainsbury's
one for future use and stuck it in the back of a cupboard. When I went
to it the other day it disintegrated as I picked it up.
I delved into our sack of bags to look for a strong one and my hand came
out covered in tiny bits of Tesco plastic bag material. Going through
the bag three had disintegrated and created much debris as I transferred
the rest to another sack.
Next task was to vacuum the hall floor:-) So Tesco and Sainsbury's are
true to their word that the bags are biodegradable. I can't say the same
yet for Morrison, Co-Op, Iceland or Waitrose.
John

There are no free bags here and the ones you buy are potato or corn based. They sometimes don't even make it home from the store whole. I have innumerable shoppers, including thermal ones, but occasionally the car, where they live, is not with me.
Before these shattering ones, we paid, but we were encouraged to reuse them until nasty and them=n to line the bin with them. The cardboard roll inside paper towels with hold about 8 or nine squished up plastic bags and can live under the driver's seat or anywhere handy.

[Jeßus]

Post by John Silver
We hoard supermarket bags in the knowledge that one day we will have to
pay for them.

You're right about that. Here in Tasmania (you know where that is,
right?), shopping bags were 'banned' here last year. By that, they
mean non-recyclable bags... The shops ran with it with glee, of
course... all in the interest of the environment <wink>. Of course,
you can buy a recyclable bag from them for 15 cents, if you want.

[Ophelia]

Post by Jeßus

Post by John Silver
We hoard supermarket bags in the knowledge that one day we will have to
pay for them.

You're right about that. Here in Tasmania (you know where that is,
right?), shopping bags were 'banned' here last year. By that, they
mean non-recyclable bags... The shops ran with it with glee, of
course... all in the interest of the environment <wink>. Of course,
you can buy a recyclable bag from them for 15 cents, if you want.

Many places in UK will not give free plastic bags to the shoppers. They
have to be paid for. When you say that shopping bags were banned, do you
mean shoppers were not allowed to take their own?

[Jeßus]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:25:44 +0100, "Ophelia"

Post by Ophelia

Post by Jeßus

Post by John Silver
We hoard supermarket bags in the knowledge that one day we will have to
pay for them.

You're right about that. Here in Tasmania (you know where that is,
right?), shopping bags were 'banned' here last year. By that, they
mean non-recyclable bags... The shops ran with it with glee, of
course... all in the interest of the environment <wink>. Of course,
you can buy a recyclable bag from them for 15 cents, if you want.

Many places in UK will not give free plastic bags to the shoppers. They
have to be paid for. When you say that shopping bags were banned, do you
mean shoppers were not allowed to take their own?

Sorry, no, I didn't mean that.

You can bring your own bags just fine, it's just that in Tasmania,
the shops are no longer allowed to supply a non-recyclable shopping
bag, free or not free. I know of two shops in Tasmania that will give
you a recyclable bag for free - but the rest do not.

I don't think it's going to have a significant positive impact on the
environment as most people I know reused their shopping bags as
rubbish bags, for pet meats, etc. Now, everyone has to buy their bags
in the supermarket - and naturally they're all made from
non-recyclable plastic. But if pay for them - that's fine apparently.
(This is distinct from the shopping bags we were discussing)

I still have tons of shopping bags put away, I started stockpiling
them about a year before the ban came into effect, and was also
pinching the shopping bags people returned to a collection point :p

[Ophelia]

Post by Jeßus
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:25:44 +0100, "Ophelia"

Post by Ophelia

Post by Jeßus

Post by John Silver
We hoard supermarket bags in the knowledge that one day we will have to
pay for them.

You're right about that. Here in Tasmania (you know where that is,
right?), shopping bags were 'banned' here last year. By that, they
mean non-recyclable bags... The shops ran with it with glee, of
course... all in the interest of the environment <wink>. Of course,
you can buy a recyclable bag from them for 15 cents, if you want.

Many places in UK will not give free plastic bags to the shoppers. They
have to be paid for. When you say that shopping bags were banned, do you
mean shoppers were not allowed to take their own?

Sorry, no, I didn't mean that.
You can bring your own bags just fine, it's just that in Tasmania,
the shops are no longer allowed to supply a non-recyclable shopping
bag, free or not free. I know of two shops in Tasmania that will give
you a recyclable bag for free - but the rest do not.

OK:)

Post by Jeßus
I don't think it's going to have a significant positive impact on the
environment as most people I know reused their shopping bags as
rubbish bags, for pet meats, etc. Now, everyone has to buy their bags
in the supermarket - and naturally they're all made from
non-recyclable plastic. But if pay for them - that's fine apparently.
(This is distinct from the shopping bags we were discussing)
I still have tons of shopping bags put away, I started stockpiling
them about a year before the ban came into effect, and was also
pinching the shopping bags people returned to a collection point :p

I don't know how long you have been back and reading, but someone here
posted that he had been stocking up on the bags, only to find that when he
went back to look at them they had disintegrated!

[Jeßus]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:20:12 +0100, "Ophelia"

Post by Ophelia

Post by Jeßus
I still have tons of shopping bags put away, I started stockpiling
them about a year before the ban came into effect, and was also
pinching the shopping bags people returned to a collection point :p

I don't know how long you have been back and reading, but someone here
posted that he had been stocking up on the bags, only to find that when he
went back to look at them they had disintegrated!

Yikes. I wonder if they were biodegradable or not? I keep mine in a
dark room, I guess I'll find out one way or the other as times goes on
:)

[Ophelia]

Post by Jeßus
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:20:12 +0100, "Ophelia"

Post by Ophelia

Post by Jeßus
I still have tons of shopping bags put away, I started stockpiling
them about a year before the ban came into effect, and was also
pinching the shopping bags people returned to a collection point :p

I don't know how long you have been back and reading, but someone here
posted that he had been stocking up on the bags, only to find that when he
went back to look at them they had disintegrated!

Yikes. I wonder if they were biodegradable or not? I keep mine in a
dark room, I guess I'll find out one way or the other as times goes on
:)

How about popping in to check ... <g> do report back?

[Jeßus]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:42:26 +0100, "Ophelia"

Post by Ophelia

Post by Jeßus
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:20:12 +0100, "Ophelia"

Post by Ophelia

Post by Jeßus
I still have tons of shopping bags put away, I started stockpiling
them about a year before the ban came into effect, and was also
pinching the shopping bags people returned to a collection point :p

I don't know how long you have been back and reading, but someone here
posted that he had been stocking up on the bags, only to find that when he
went back to look at them they had disintegrated!

Yikes. I wonder if they were biodegradable or not? I keep mine in a
dark room, I guess I'll find out one way or the other as times goes on
:)

How about popping in to check ... <g> do report back?

So far, so good... no obvious deterioration. Not all that sure how old
they are, but a lot of them must be 18 months old by now.

[Ophelia]

Post by Jeßus
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:42:26 +0100, "Ophelia"

Post by Ophelia

Post by Jeßus
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:20:12 +0100, "Ophelia"

Post by Ophelia

Post by Jeßus
I still have tons of shopping bags put away, I started stockpiling
them about a year before the ban came into effect, and was also
pinching the shopping bags people returned to a collection point :p

I don't know how long you have been back and reading, but someone here
posted that he had been stocking up on the bags, only to find that when he
went back to look at them they had disintegrated!

Yikes. I wonder if they were biodegradable or not? I keep mine in a
dark room, I guess I'll find out one way or the other as times goes on
:)

How about popping in to check ... <g> do report back?

So far, so good... no obvious deterioration. Not all that sure how old
they are, but a lot of them must be 18 months old by now.

Ok:) I can't remember if the poster said how old his were.

[graham]

Post by Jeßus
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:25:44 +0100, "Ophelia"

Post by Ophelia

Post by Jeßus

Post by John Silver
We hoard supermarket bags in the knowledge that one day we will have to
pay for them.

You're right about that. Here in Tasmania (you know where that is,
right?), shopping bags were 'banned' here last year. By that, they
mean non-recyclable bags... The shops ran with it with glee, of
course... all in the interest of the environment <wink>. Of course,
you can buy a recyclable bag from them for 15 cents, if you want.

Many places in UK will not give free plastic bags to the shoppers. They
have to be paid for. When you say that shopping bags were banned, do you
mean shoppers were not allowed to take their own?

Sorry, no, I didn't mean that.
You can bring your own bags just fine, it's just that in Tasmania,
the shops are no longer allowed to supply a non-recyclable shopping
bag, free or not free. I know of two shops in Tasmania that will give
you a recyclable bag for free - but the rest do not.
I don't think it's going to have a significant positive impact on the
environment as most people I know reused their shopping bags as
rubbish bags, for pet meats, etc. Now, everyone has to buy their bags
in the supermarket - and naturally they're all made from
non-recyclable plastic. But if pay for them - that's fine apparently.
(This is distinct from the shopping bags we were discussing)
I still have tons of shopping bags put away, I started stockpiling
them about a year before the ban came into effect, and was also
pinching the shopping bags people returned to a collection point :p

I generally use my own shopping bags but occasionally I deliberately
leave them in the car to get some plastic bags from the checkout. They
are a perfect size for my under-the-sink garbage container.
Graham

[Ophelia]

Post by Jeßus
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:25:44 +0100, "Ophelia"

Post by Ophelia

Post by Jeßus

Post by John Silver
We hoard supermarket bags in the knowledge that one day we will have to
pay for them.

You're right about that. Here in Tasmania (you know where that is,
right?), shopping bags were 'banned' here last year. By that, they
mean non-recyclable bags... The shops ran with it with glee, of
course... all in the interest of the environment <wink>. Of course,
you can buy a recyclable bag from them for 15 cents, if you want.

Many places in UK will not give free plastic bags to the shoppers.
They
have to be paid for. When you say that shopping bags were banned, do you
mean shoppers were not allowed to take their own?

Sorry, no, I didn't mean that.
You can bring your own bags just fine, it's just that in Tasmania,
the shops are no longer allowed to supply a non-recyclable shopping
bag, free or not free. I know of two shops in Tasmania that will give
you a recyclable bag for free - but the rest do not.
I don't think it's going to have a significant positive impact on the
environment as most people I know reused their shopping bags as
rubbish bags, for pet meats, etc. Now, everyone has to buy their bags
in the supermarket - and naturally they're all made from
non-recyclable plastic. But if pay for them - that's fine apparently.
(This is distinct from the shopping bags we were discussing)
I still have tons of shopping bags put away, I started stockpiling
them about a year before the ban came into effect, and was also
pinching the shopping bags people returned to a collection point :p

I generally use my own shopping bags but occasionally I deliberately leave
them in the car to get some plastic bags from the checkout. They are a
perfect size for my under-the-sink garbage container.

Snap!

[Jane Gillett]

Post by Jeßus
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:25:44 +0100, "Ophelia"

Post by Jane Gillett

Post by John Silver
We hoard supermarket bags in the knowledge that one day we will have to
pay for them.

<snip>

<snip>
I don't think it's going to have a significant positive impact on the
environment as most people I know reused their shopping bags as
rubbish bags, for pet meats, etc. Now, everyone has to buy their bags
in the supermarket - and naturally they're all made from
non-recyclable plastic. But if pay for them - that's fine apparently.
(This is distinct from the shopping bags we were discussing)

It still matters what is meant by recyclable/nonrecyclable whether the bags
are shopping bags or otherwise; I cannot see any reason for the
distinction. AISI the important factor is whether the polymer breaks down
rather than merely falling apart into a powder and then whether the
disintegration products are harmful in themselves. Both the powder and the
disintegration products will be eaten in a significant proportion by the
small organisms in the sea and enter the food chain (and us) that way.

You may be interested to look up the work of Professor Richard Thompson at
Plymouth University who works in this field.

Post by Jeßus
I still have tons of shopping bags put away, I started stockpiling
them about a year before the ban came into effect, and was also
pinching the shopping bags people returned to a collection point :p

It would probably be worth bringing them into use and not keeping them too
long as they may well fall apart into powder anyway.

I generally use my own shopping bags but occasionally I deliberately leave
them in the car to get some plastic bags from the checkout. They are a
perfect size for my under-the-sink garbage container.

Snap!

And me.
Jane

[Jeßus]

Post by graham

Post by Jeßus
I still have tons of shopping bags put away, I started stockpiling
them about a year before the ban came into effect, and was also
pinching the shopping bags people returned to a collection point :p

I generally use my own shopping bags but occasionally I deliberately
leave them in the car to get some plastic bags from the checkout. They
are a perfect size for my under-the-sink garbage container.

Yep, I use them for garbage and portioning out pet meat for the
freezer mostly.