Phixer
New member
i'll answer your question if and when you answer mine
Already answered many post ago, dont care if you choose to accept it. Might as well move on.
Last edited:
for those who claim to truly care... ;-p
- Thread starter vitz
- Start date
- Status
Already answered many post ago, dont care if you choose to accept it. Might as well move on.
Phixer
New member
there's that pesky definition thing again.
i think it's fairly obvious that terms like 'forever' in the context of this conversation (and most that use the term forever) are meant in the context of 'our' subjective timeline of existence.
a million years is forever, to a being who on avg doesn't make it to 100. i don't think anyone who uses the term 'forever' when speaking about plastic's 'lifespan' in the environment means 'until the end of the universe'
An assumption. Most I know think of forever as well beyond their "subjective timeline of existence".
Our timeline of existence is irrelevant when compared to the planet or the universe. It these paramaters that govern our existence, not our actions that govern the natural order of things. To think otherwise is not responsible it is arrogant and naive. A miniscule 100 year lifespan if you dont smoke...LOL, or the 200 years of industry compared to 6 billion. Unless we get hit by a comet, the planet will be here long after our civilization with or without reefs and rain forrests.
It's is human nature to destroy things whether we do it intentionally or not, it is natures to balance. Nothing has ever changed that and nothing ever will, no laws, no inventions and certainly not the way we use plastic. Nature is harmony, mankind is chaos.
A million years is nothing in terms of the universe or the planet we live on. You cant alter nature to comply with something that lives less than 100 years. It's the other way around.
Plastic should be measured on those terms not the lifespan of a human. And... even on those terms the life of plastic and it's environmental impact is miniscule. So do things like plastic make us stronger or does they harm us?
My life has never been harmed by plastic, if anything it is better because of plastic. Maybe thats because I dont eat the bags.
Last edited:
vitz
New member
this is so not remotely close to anything i've written.
i'd suggest you slow down a tad, read what others are actually saying, before replying.
after you 're-use' a plastic bag to where it's so tattered you cannot use it, you then recycle it, by processing it into another re-usable bag.
do you really not grasp the difference?
StinkyBunny
New member
Today Styrofoam is 100% recyclable. With all of these synthetic alternative manufacturers popping up they need every piece of scrap plastic they can lay their hands on. I'm all for recycling, but the infrastructure still isn't there for it. I remember a few years ago one of my customers saying that a major plastic manufacturer had 300 rail cars of bottle flake sitting on a siding, that's granulated bottles. Wanna know where it went? To Japan to fuel their power plants. We're getting there, slowly but surely.
power boat jim
Well-known member
All of what you say is based on what sounds like your own philosophies. None of what you say is rooted in any type of natural science basis. I have read this post above several times and it makes nearly no sense to me at all. Its alot vague statements and double talk.
You say your life has never been harmed by the use of plastic... How do you know that. Water bottles may give off BPA. Plastic is a petroleum product, manufacturing it requires oil. That has problems associated with it that effects all of us.
You keep stating man is chaos nature is harmony. In Nature there is neither. What you perceive as balance and chaos is simply cause and effect. The only other thing nature guarantees is entropy.
Phixer
New member
Of course and based on personal experience. What else? Natural science consistently fails to provide answers for most of the problems we have. So what is the point in not proving it for yourself through your own experience. Science is wrong more than it is right and if it something works for you then that becomes your reality no matter what science says. Why not use your own scientific method and validate for yourself.
Is plastic is bad, like I said I see no evidence of it harming me. It's never harmed me, and Ive experienced for a very long time. If it is harmful and Im not harmed by it then I accept that at face value. Thats not being naive thats living in reality Jim. One own experience is all that really matters.
And how do you know it has been harmed by plastic? There is no way to prove this, scientifically or otherwise. Just the mere act of walking down the street exposes you to all kinds of carcinogens. Are you attempting to say plastic is the same as asbestos?
And that entropy has outlasted mankind by a few billion years. In nature there is both chaos (natural disasters) and harmony (perseverance and evolution) Id call that pretty harmonious and balanced. Much more so than any man made system created within the last 6 thousand years.
Thats a nice boat, whats the hull made of?
Last edited:
Phixer
New member
Post 118 again vitz. Apparently those who publish dictionaries dont know the difference either. Re-use and recycle are synonymous. Your confusing this with the intended purpose of the bag, its service life as a bag may be up but it can still be re-used for other purposes even if this means melting it down and starting over to make a net to catch your fish with.
Of course you can re-use a tattered old bag, look at Jane Fonda. :lmao: It's known as innovation and works much better than denial. Off the top, how about shredding it and using it for packing material? That packing material will last a long time (pretty sustainable). Ive used them as a weed barrier beneath recycled rubber compost also. That with my recycled/reused saltwater keeps the weeds away. What happens when you melt it down and make it into something else, are you re-using this plastic for another purpose or is this recycling...both the same.
Last edited:
power boat jim
Well-known member
No hypocrisy here, since the boat spends most of its time in a natural fluid,anything bad should be balanced out by the harmony of its surroundings.
Boat builders have taken steps in using controls to reduce exposure to fumes because the fumes from the curing fiberglass were deemed harmful to the people working with it. Dont really know if its dangerous to the end user or not.
I also dont think I was being a hypocrite since I never said I would not use plastic or that all of it is dangerous. All Im saying is how can you be sure that every type of plastic that you have come into contact with over the course of your life has done you no harm? Asbestos is so different then plastic I wont even address that comment.
Natural sciences include chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology and earth science. Each of these are governed by the scientific method which means most of the results and findings are quantifiable and not open to opinion. So, to say the natural sciences are wrong more then the are right is so far off base that you must have a different definition of what the natural sciences are then the accepted one.
vitz
New member
a comedian, you are not, and....
/facepalm
anyone who contends that reuse and recycle are synonyms needs to re-examine their perceived faculty of the english language.
i s'pose you never heard the phrase 'reduce, reuse, recycle'.
you're acting like a petulant child, and i'm fairly certain you're arguing *way* out of your league.
r-balljunkie
Registered Reefer
oh the irony. i think im the ONLY person on RC who doesnt own a car, actually rides a bike everywhere i go.....scuba gear on my trailer as i hit the reef to go diving.
i dont think i care any more or less than anyone else.......
i dont think i care any more or less than anyone else.......
jdhuyvetter
SWFMAS Event Coordinator
If I lived on an island I could throw a rock across, I wouldn't own a car either. A boat yes, car no.
Phixer
New member
Accepted by whom? I live in the real world and do not accept theories. I accept reality. Does this make me ignorant for not accepting what science says?
Jim here is some science... according to http://eartheasy.com/play_eco-friendly_boating.htm
"The volume of hydrocarbon and oil pollution entering North America's waters every year from recreational boating is estimated to be more than 15 times the amount of the Exxon Valdez spill (up to one billion litres per year). "
They could be wrong, do you believe them? Let me know and I'll post what OSHA and the EPA says. Does this mean your boat is causing harm?
Im sure your a responsible person (and pretty sharp after reading some of your posts) so this probably dosent apply to you (although the mfg of gel coated fiberglass boat hulls is another story).
Just like most people are responsible enough not to pollute the seas with their plastic bags and conversely have not been harmed by them.
Oh and if science is right more than it is wrong why did it create plastic?
ReachTheSky
Active member
No offense but I don't think you understand science very well, if at all. You are drawing wild conclusions and focusing exclusively on how something impacts yourself. Science is the exact opposite of that.
Phixer
New member
a comedian, you are not, and....
/facepalm
anyone who contends that reuse and recycle are synonyms needs to re-examine their perceived faculty of the english language.
i s'pose you never heard the phrase 'reduce, reuse, recycle'.
you're acting like a petulant child, and i'm fairly certain you're arguing *way* out of your league.
Your right, your arguments are much more comical especially when defeated by a "petulant child".
Phixer
New member
LOL of course not....Yes, how it impacts me, that was mentioned a long time ago? I could care less about speculative issues such as how peanut butter affects the mating habits of the "yellow bellied sap sucker" or if lizard **** causes warts because most of what is presented is not proof, just theory guised as science with no proof. There is no scientific method to prove these claims so I like to take it down a level and ask how it affects one directly. Most of the time it doesnt.
I've studied long enough to know I dont know but know enough to dispute some elements of it. Hope that makes sense.
I know very little about so many things. But I do know myself and what works for me as self centered and unpopular as that may appear to some. And I think others out there may feel the same way.
"They say a man never really knows himself... until his freedom's been taken away. I wonder... how well you know yourself? "
Tychus Findlay
Last edited:
r-balljunkie
Registered Reefer
actually two decent golf drives wide, 2+ miles long......morning rush hour is killer
power boat jim
Well-known member
I think you may be confusing science with an agenda vs pure science. Unfortunately, there are alot of agendas out there. The site you linked is run by someone who is more of a naturalist then a scientist. As far as the 2 stroke pouring 1/3 of its fuel into the water, its the most ridiculous claim I have ever herd. Any one who believs these claims and I do mean claims knows nothing on how an internal combustion engine works and has probably never even operated one.
And as for dumping 15x the Amoco Valdez by the boating public, all I can say is where is the oil slick? I dont know that recreational boating uses fifteen supertankers of fuel each year let alone spill that much. My boat has catalytic converters on it and burns next to no oil. I think you are confusing extremest agenda/ claims in place of scientific fact. Once you can separate the two you might see things differently.
vitz
New member
Phixer
New member
The EPA and OSHA say similar things about the boating industry Jim.
I know the article was speculative, my point is that:
Some agendas are started by naturalists. Naturalists who like to hide behind false science and hand pick what they want to hear. Here's whats funny. The same science that created plastic is what they like to rely upon to save them from it?
Whats always correct?... personal experience. It's always correct because it works for the individual. There is truth in experience, at least for the beholder. And thats fine with me. Ive never been harmed by plastic (disclaimer personal experience here) (and willing to believe) any more than you have been harmed by the boating industry or believe yours harms the environment. Thats not science, thats personal truth.
Last edited:
Deinonych
New member
You are quoting a video game character? :eek1:
- Status
