5 ms·

> Burning plastic does not release pollutants Very false

ars 4y ago
You are very misinformed. An industrial incinerator for burning plastic does not release any pollutants, only water and CO2.
- braingenious 4y ago
  What if you consider CO2 to be something you would prefer not to add to the atmosphere if avoidable? What exactly is a pollutant by your estimation?
  - ars 4y ago
    Who's adding CO2? You substitute CO2 from oil, with CO2 from plastic. This actually reduces the total amount of CO2, because you don't need to pump extra oil out of the ground, which costs extra energy. > What exactly is a pollutant by your estimation? Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. If there's simply too much of it, but some amount is ok, that might be a problem, but that's not a pollutant. Otherwise a flood from a hurricane would be called "Water pollution", which I hope you can see is a pretty silly definition.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      > Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. I have never heard this definition before! How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in the atmosphere in any amount? It kind of seems like such a narrow definition of “pollutant” enables the justification of burning darn near anything short of man-made nuclear isotopes that don’t otherwise exist in nature. How does this definition serve a practical purpose? edit: To address your hurricane analogy, I am not a fan of hurricanes or their damage. I have had friends die in hurricanes. I agree that trying to argue an arbitrary definition of “pollution” to serve one’s pre-existing ideas or pedantic need to be Dictionary Emperor is silly and likely pointless at best, though.
      - ars 4y ago
        > I have never heard this definition before! Let's hear your definition then. > How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in the atmosphere in any amount? Why is that hard? Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2, Water, and some noble gasses. Other stuff might be there naturally (for example salt by the sea), but are pollutants.
        braingenious 4y ago
        From dictionary.com: any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. Can you link me to where you’ve found that “pollutant” is defined as a nearly infinite group of compounds but explicitly excludes CO2? This is the first time I’ve heard this.
        ars 4y ago
        Where in the world are you getting this "nearly infinite" business? I never said anything like that, in fact I gave you a short list. Go back and read what I wrote, I feel like you skimmed it or something. And your dictionary definition is problematic because it doesn't define "unsuitable for a specific purpose". It's basically a circular definition. I will then ask you please define "unsuitable for a specific purpose" and we are back where we started.
        braingenious 4y ago
        You said that only nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and “some noble gases” should be in the atmosphere. Everything else (such as salt) is a pollutant. How many compounds are there that are not nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and “some noble gases”? In my estimation that is uncountable but maybe you have some hard numbers? edit: “Suitable purpose“ for me would be creating or maintaining an environment that sustains human life. Is your “checkmate” position something like “Hah! In my dictionary, ‘suitable purpose’ only relates to underwater welding, root beer production, and synthetic diamond formation!” I personally find moving goalposts to avoid talking about concrete things in concrete terms to be problematic, but I understand that if a person is quite jaded about the future of life on earth that it might seem that the only thing worth debating is semantics. Maybe avoiding boredom matters more than attempting to avert catastrophe.
  - chrischen 4y ago
    CO2 is not unavoidable though. Every ounce of plastic burned is an ounce of some other fossil fuel not burned.
    - otikik 4y ago
      That would be truth in a world where Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Hydro and Geothermal didn't exist.
      - chrischen 4y ago
        Those cannot replace all oil and natural gas burning, so you may as well get rid of the plastic first before burning those fossil fuels. If you think about it, it's still recycling, because you are reusing the waste plastic for energy.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      Every ounce of plastic buried is an ounce of plastic not burned. Every ounce of plastic not made is an ounce of plastic not burned. There are lots of sentences that you can start with “Every ounce of plastic.” Which one of those informs the definition of a pollutant?
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > Which one of those informs the definition of a pollutant? All of them. Looking at this in rough terms: Burning emits gross CO2 but not net CO2. And burning doesn't take up all that landfill space. So burning is better than burial. Making nothing at all (and washing nothing too, because washing has a cost!) is the best option, but is not always an option. Making something else, or washing something, needs to be analyzed per situation.
        braingenious 4y ago
        >Burning emits gross CO2 but not net CO2. And burning doesn't take up all that landfill space. So burning is better than burial. Wait, are you saying that the optimal place to store carbon is in the atmosphere?
- bombcar 4y ago
  Where does the nitrogen go? Is trash entirely made up of H, O, C?
  - ars 4y ago
    There's very very little nitrogen in plastic. Among commonly used plastics just nylon has it (and not very much - 2 out of 38 atoms are nitrogen), and there's not a large amount of nylon in trash.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Is the trash pure plastic? I actually suspect incineration is not a bad method at all, just wonder were everything else would go. I assume scrubbers or something.
      - ars 4y ago
        There's probably some contamination, but ideally it's just plastic and paper. And yah, scrubbers would handle everything else. Vinyl has chlorine which also needs to be removed. These types of scrubbers are in use all over, it's not a new technology. The main thing is to remove food and other organic waste, remove metals because they are useful. Glass is harmless, but also clutters up the ash, so best to remove it as well. If it were up to me recycling would work like this: Metal, plastic, and paper would be recycled, single stream. The metal is easily removed, the rest is burned. Glass and organics (and everything else) would be thrown out, with some people opting to compost, I would encourage, but not require, composting. There is really no reason to recycle glass, and trying to do so causes more harm than good since it smashes and the shards get in everything and just makes it harder to make a pure product. If you absolutely must recycle glass, it has to be in its own bin, do not single stream it.
- mrinterweb 4y ago
  From what I've researched, there dioxins, PFAS, heavy metals, and particulate matter result from burning plastic. I haven't seen anything that would suggest that only water and CO2 are the only byproducts of burning plastic. Edit: source -> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187802961630158X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187802961...

ars 4y ago

You are very misinformed. An industrial incinerator for burning plastic does not release any pollutants, only water and CO2.

braingenious 4y ago
What if you consider CO2 to be something you would prefer not to add to the atmosphere if avoidable? What exactly is a pollutant by your estimation?
- ars 4y ago
  Who's adding CO2? You substitute CO2 from oil, with CO2 from plastic. This actually reduces the total amount of CO2, because you don't need to pump extra oil out of the ground, which costs extra energy. > What exactly is a pollutant by your estimation? Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. If there's simply too much of it, but some amount is ok, that might be a problem, but that's not a pollutant. Otherwise a flood from a hurricane would be called "Water pollution", which I hope you can see is a pretty silly definition.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    > Something that doesn't belong there in any amount. I have never heard this definition before! How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in the atmosphere in any amount? It kind of seems like such a narrow definition of “pollutant” enables the justification of burning darn near anything short of man-made nuclear isotopes that don’t otherwise exist in nature. How does this definition serve a practical purpose? edit: To address your hurricane analogy, I am not a fan of hurricanes or their damage. I have had friends die in hurricanes. I agree that trying to argue an arbitrary definition of “pollution” to serve one’s pre-existing ideas or pedantic need to be Dictionary Emperor is silly and likely pointless at best, though.
    - ars 4y ago
      > I have never heard this definition before! Let's hear your definition then. > How do you in particular decide which compounds shouldn’t be in the atmosphere in any amount? Why is that hard? Nitrogen, Oxygen, CO2, Water, and some noble gasses. Other stuff might be there naturally (for example salt by the sea), but are pollutants.
      - braingenious 4y ago
        From dictionary.com: any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose. Can you link me to where you’ve found that “pollutant” is defined as a nearly infinite group of compounds but explicitly excludes CO2? This is the first time I’ve heard this.
        ars 4y ago
        Where in the world are you getting this "nearly infinite" business? I never said anything like that, in fact I gave you a short list. Go back and read what I wrote, I feel like you skimmed it or something. And your dictionary definition is problematic because it doesn't define "unsuitable for a specific purpose". It's basically a circular definition. I will then ask you please define "unsuitable for a specific purpose" and we are back where we started.
        braingenious 4y ago
        You said that only nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and “some noble gases” should be in the atmosphere. Everything else (such as salt) is a pollutant. How many compounds are there that are not nitrogen, oxygen, CO2 and “some noble gases”? In my estimation that is uncountable but maybe you have some hard numbers? edit: “Suitable purpose“ for me would be creating or maintaining an environment that sustains human life. Is your “checkmate” position something like “Hah! In my dictionary, ‘suitable purpose’ only relates to underwater welding, root beer production, and synthetic diamond formation!” I personally find moving goalposts to avoid talking about concrete things in concrete terms to be problematic, but I understand that if a person is quite jaded about the future of life on earth that it might seem that the only thing worth debating is semantics. Maybe avoiding boredom matters more than attempting to avert catastrophe.
- chrischen 4y ago
  CO2 is not unavoidable though. Every ounce of plastic burned is an ounce of some other fossil fuel not burned.
  - otikik 4y ago
    That would be truth in a world where Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Hydro and Geothermal didn't exist.
    - chrischen 4y ago
      Those cannot replace all oil and natural gas burning, so you may as well get rid of the plastic first before burning those fossil fuels. If you think about it, it's still recycling, because you are reusing the waste plastic for energy.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    Every ounce of plastic buried is an ounce of plastic not burned. Every ounce of plastic not made is an ounce of plastic not burned. There are lots of sentences that you can start with “Every ounce of plastic.” Which one of those informs the definition of a pollutant?
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > Which one of those informs the definition of a pollutant? All of them. Looking at this in rough terms: Burning emits gross CO2 but not net CO2. And burning doesn't take up all that landfill space. So burning is better than burial. Making nothing at all (and washing nothing too, because washing has a cost!) is the best option, but is not always an option. Making something else, or washing something, needs to be analyzed per situation.
      - braingenious 4y ago
        >Burning emits gross CO2 but not net CO2. And burning doesn't take up all that landfill space. So burning is better than burial. Wait, are you saying that the optimal place to store carbon is in the atmosphere?
bombcar 4y ago
Where does the nitrogen go? Is trash entirely made up of H, O, C?
- ars 4y ago
  There's very very little nitrogen in plastic. Among commonly used plastics just nylon has it (and not very much - 2 out of 38 atoms are nitrogen), and there's not a large amount of nylon in trash.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Is the trash pure plastic? I actually suspect incineration is not a bad method at all, just wonder were everything else would go. I assume scrubbers or something.
    - ars 4y ago
      There's probably some contamination, but ideally it's just plastic and paper. And yah, scrubbers would handle everything else. Vinyl has chlorine which also needs to be removed. These types of scrubbers are in use all over, it's not a new technology. The main thing is to remove food and other organic waste, remove metals because they are useful. Glass is harmless, but also clutters up the ash, so best to remove it as well. If it were up to me recycling would work like this: Metal, plastic, and paper would be recycled, single stream. The metal is easily removed, the rest is burned. Glass and organics (and everything else) would be thrown out, with some people opting to compost, I would encourage, but not require, composting. There is really no reason to recycle glass, and trying to do so causes more harm than good since it smashes and the shards get in everything and just makes it harder to make a pure product. If you absolutely must recycle glass, it has to be in its own bin, do not single stream it.
mrinterweb 4y ago
From what I've researched, there dioxins, PFAS, heavy metals, and particulate matter result from burning plastic. I haven't seen anything that would suggest that only water and CO2 are the only byproducts of burning plastic. Edit: source -> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187802961630158X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187802961...