HawthorneVillager.com

Milton welcomes DOODOO , you ready for this one, because it will be coming soon


City can't handle the 2,500 tonnes of scooped-up poop put in garbage bins

Apr 11, 2007 04:30 AM
Jim Byers
City Hall Bureau Chief

First, they said you had to stoop and scoop if you took your dog for a walk. Now, City of Toronto officials say there's too much pet waste in park trash bins.

So, what's a dog owner to do?

A city council committee was told yesterday that way too much dog waste is being dumped into garbage cans in city parks – perhaps 2,500 tonnes a year. But there's no room for it in the city's green bins and it's not supposed to be trucked to Michigan with the rest of Toronto's garbage, politicians were told.

Armed with a report that said pet waste made up an alarming 25 per cent of the garbage found in a sample of park trash bins last summer, members of the parks and environment committee asked staff to report back on potential solutions.

But nobody seemed able to agree on the long-term answer to the dog doo issue, or to the problem of coffee cups and other material filling bins in the city's 1,500 parks.

"The good news is that the poop and scoop program appears to be working," said Councillor Pam McConnell (Ward 28, Toronto Centre-Rosedale). "The problem is there's no place to put it."

McConnell was quick to shoot down the concept of forcing park users to carry their pet's waste home with them.

"We need to look into the idea of putting green bins in our parks," McConnell said. "I understand there's no room for it, but it isn't logical for people to carry it home. They'll put it into the garbage if we don't have green bins."

Parks director Paul Ronan said he has only nine bylaw enforcement officers for the city's entire network of waterfront, ravine and neighbourhood parks and the hundreds of smaller parkettes that dot the city.

Deputy city manager Richard Butts told committee members that pet waste can technically go into green bins, although there's an "outrageous amount of plastic and a limited amount of product" in most bags of dog droppings.

The theory behind the green bins is fine, he said, but the city doesn't have enough room at the processing plants that handle organic wastes.

Councillor and committee chair Paula Fletcher (Ward 30, Toronto-Danforth) said she didn't think it would be such a hardship for someone to carry a bag of pet waste home with them.

"We don't want any illegally dumped dumps," she said.

Actually, there wouldn't be much point, said Chari Sadinsky, who brought Max, her yellow Lab, to a canine parkette at Esplanade and Sherbourne St. yesterday.

"I have no choice. I live in an apartment, so we don't have any compost facilities."

Mike Ahmadi, a Richmond Hill computer animator who takes his shepherd, Vikki, to his downtown workplace, said Markham provides biodegradable bags for use by pet owners.

"If the city (Toronto) can provide a specific container to put it in, I'd use it," Ahmadi said, adding, "I'd be happy if all people picked up after their dogs because you can often see some people don't even do that."

Councillor Michael Walker (Ward 22, St. Paul's) suggested the city could use space at its newly acquired Green Lane dump site near London to turn dog waste into organic materials, but Butts replied it would be an expensive proposition to haul pet droppings so far.

Premika Ratnam, who said she represents a group called The Coalition of Parents and Park Users, said too much pet waste can still be found outside garbage bins in parks, schoolyards and playgrounds.

"Too many people are using parks as their back yards. Kids want to play in the grass and lie in the grass and roll in the grass."

A parks department report said Pickering has installed dog waste stations in city parks, providing biodegradable bags and a special receptacle. The report said the contractor who collects the waste can process it through Toronto's sewage system.

That was news to city staff, and to McConnell. "Maybe we should take our (dog waste) and put it in Pickering," she said.

Pickering officials couldn't be reached for comment.

well lookie here, a clean alternative...

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/200869

"And now time for something completely different"

One topic to a thread?

_________________
14C - Lot 82 - Upland B
Roleplaying Game Software for your iPhone: RPGTouch

read the last paragraph....HALTON ...YOU JOKERS BETTER SPEAK UP NOW...OR THIS WILL BE JUST THE FIRST SLAVO OF CRAP THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO TAKE

Changes to incineration rules slammed

Easing approval process to burn waste for energy will add to climate change, pollution, critics say

Mar 27, 2007 04:30 AM
Peter Gorrie
Environment writer

Queen's Park has streamlined environmental approvals for incinerators that generate electricity by burning garbage – a move that critics say will contribute to climate change and pollution, and undermine the province's Blue Box recycling system.

Under regulations made public late last Friday, environmental assessments are no longer required for small pilot projects for "new waste technologies," such as energy-from-waste incinerators.

"Our goal is to improve the environmental assessment process and to give municipalities and industry more effective tools for managing waste," Environment Minister Laurel Broten said in a news release.

In public consultations last year, many Ontario municipalities made it clear they wanted more options for getting rid of garbage and support incineration, a spokesperson for the minister said yesterday.

Critics said the move would lead to increased greenhouse gas and toxic emissions, and also discourage recycling and waste diversion since incinerators need a massive guaranteed supply of combustible materials. That leads to pressure to burn paper, plastics and other recyclable materials, they said.

"It is truly outrageous that the Ontario government is fast-tracking these controversial changes despite the fact that these incinerators produce 33 per cent more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal-fired power plants," said Anastasia Lintner, a lawyer and economist with Sierra Legal. "Recycling and reuse of waste can save more than 25 times the energy recovered by incineration."

The justification seems to be that incinerators "somehow will make a contribution to the province's energy supply," said Mark Winfield, of the Pembina Institute.

"Yet recycling products like newspapers and plastic containers uses far less energy than having to recreate that entire product," Winfield said. "Recycling programs are simply a far more rational energy conservation strategy."

York and Durham Regions are studying construction of a $250 million incinerator in Clarington. Others are being considered for Hamilton, Halton Region, Niagara Region and Ottawa.

you better take action ASAP on incineration...

quote from GARY CARR in this weeks Halton compass..
" It's important to stress the EFW PROCESS WAS STARTED BY LAST COUNCIL, NOT BY THIS GROUP...."

gee Mr. Carr, still talking about it?

I was referring to the dog crap issue that you randomly brought up.

_________________
14C - Lot 82 - Upland B
Roleplaying Game Software for your iPhone: RPGTouch

This isn't a clean alternative, this is a clean addition. You realize that the need to burn natural gas creates the need to distribute it, creating the whole pipe system and requirement for pressure letdown stations.

These turbines are fantastic waste power reclamation, in no uncertain terms this is awesome. It doesn't replace a full scale power generation facility, fuel cells are just not up to that job yet. What this does do is provide an excellent platform for developing and testing that technology.

This is the direction we should be heading in, and that is high tech environmental R&D.

This is a salable clean technological asset developed in Canada, that spurs both our commitments to the environment, and our economy. Capitalism and environmentalism with a common goal?! I think I just heard the captain of the[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior"]Rainbow Warrior[/url] sh*t himself.

_________________
14C - Lot 82 - Upland B
Roleplaying Game Software for your iPhone: RPGTouch

This is a logical fallacy known as an "Appeal to fear" combined with a "Slippery Slope"

You are saying because other people have "fed the monster" that is what we will do, which may or may not be the case. In face it may be possible to legislate the opposite, a law that says "Thou shalt not collect and burn wastes originally diverted to recycling."

You are also stoking peoples fears of the ecological damage they may occur again based on a biased set of information.

Furthermore this whole link is a diversionary tactic away from the very real issue of the NGF Plant.

Also known as the Red Herring fallacy.


Lest I be accused to a Diversionary fallacy, or just being a hypocrit, lets return to the issue.

I would like to know, if you feel you have a moral, or social responsibility to suffer some burden for the power you consume? Which is the pillar on which I have supported the NFG plant.

_________________
14C - Lot 82 - Upland B
Roleplaying Game Software for your iPhone: RPGTouch

Striving to outflank Premier Dalton McGuinty on climate change, Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory says his government would set firm targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In a speech yesterday to the Ontario Environment Industry Association, Tory vowed that provincial emissions would be slashed if he were elected premier on Oct. 10.

"We have to make some real changes in the way we live and work to reduce greenhouse gas," he said. "To do this, we have to set a target. We need to settle on a plan to get there and we have to commit to deliver on it."

With experts warning that emissions must be reduced to 60 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050 to curb climate change, Tory said his administration would "slam the brakes" on Ontario's increasing greenhouse-gas problems.

"Turning around an economy of our size, and changing the habits of 12 million Ontarians is a bit like turning around the Queen Mary. So if elected, we will set as our interim goal achieving the first 10 per cent of reductions by 2020," he said.

To achieve that, Tory said he would work with other levels of government and industry and set realistic benchmarks every four years.

Ontario is ranked second to Alberta as the worst polluter in Canada, and is home to the country's No. 1 polluter: Ontario Power Generation's Nanticoke coal-fired station on Lake Erie.

Environment Minister Laurel Broten, who will reveal some reduction targets later this spring, insisted the Liberal plan "would be better" than the Tory's proposal.

"I absolutely disagree with you that we've been beaten to the punch," said Broten.

"Mr. Tory has put forward targets without a plan. Targets without a plan are not good enough."

NDP Leader Howard Hampton has said his party would aim for Kyoto levels of 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012 and 80 per cent by 2050.

Ontario to ban 'old' light bulbs



It will soon be lights out for incandescent light bulbs.

The Ontario government said Wednesday it plans to ban the current bulbs and what it calls other inefficient lighting technologies by 2012 in an effort to reduce the province's electricity consumption and lower the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

"It's the equivalent of taking 250,000 cars off the road," said Environment Minister Laurel Broten.

The move makes Ontario the first province in Canada - and the first jurisdiction in North America - to commit to a ban on inefficient lighting.

Australia committed earlier this year to ban incandescent bulbs by 2010, a move that has sparked worldwide debate about the future of the Thomas Edison innovation.

Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said the ban will make it illegal for retailers to sell the bulb, but homeowners and businesses won't be penalized for using them.

The ban represents a major boost for compact fluorescent lighting technology, or CFLs, which uses 75 per cent less electricity than current incandescent bulbs.

Experts predict that within a few years, newer bulbs based on light emitting diode, or LED, technology will offer even greater efficiency and light quality.

Opposition energy critics applauded the McGuinty government's move but said the deadline of 2012 isn't soon enough. "If Australia can do it by 2010, I don't see why we can't," said New Democrat MPP Peter Tabuns.

or at least post a link in addition to your text so that journalists are properly credited with the information you are presenting.

_________________
14C - Lot 82 - Upland B
Roleplaying Game Software for your iPhone: RPGTouch

To all who contribute to these discussions, there are two sides to every coin, blah, blah, blah.... I guess whatever happens we will be faced with the consequences, good or bad or whatever..... williamb, I think the discussion on light bulbs is a good one, but might be better served in a new thread.... the following link has some very useful information related to this subject

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

not to worry, this is just from a can of pop

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=h ... n%26sa%3DG

How Much CO2 is in a Bottle of Soda?

__Dr. David G. Haase, The Science House


I was wondering that the other day and remembered that one good way to get the carbon dioxide out of a soda is to shake it. My son demonstrated how to do this. This led to an experiment which you can try for yourself and investigate the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in different beverages and how much can be released at different temperatures.
To do this experiment I used a few 16 ounce (454 milliliter) plastic bottles of Pepsi One (at room temperature) and an electronic scale that could hold 0.5 Kg and could be tared. Your chemistry teacher may have such a scale.

First I put a bottle of the Pepsi One on the scale and pressed the "tare" button. This sets a 'zero' on the scale so that when I measure the bottle again the scale will show how much the mass of the bottle increased or decreased.

Then I shook the bottle vigorously for a few seconds. I could see the foam produced and could feel the pressure building up as the plastic bottle expanded slightly in my hand.

Now, this is the trick, I let the foam subside and SLOWLY turned the bottlecap to release the gas pressure without spraying any liquid out of the top of the bottle. Then I tightened the bottlecap and measured the bottle on the scale. The change in mass showed how much gas was released when I opened the cap.

Then I repeated the process and measured again. I recorded the change in mass each time and found that after about five minutes of shaking the mass did not change very much. Below is a table and graph of one of my trials. For you math fans the graph looks like it decreases exponentially.



I did this experiment with three 454 milliliter bottles of Pepsi One. On the first bottle I learned how to spew Pepsi all over the room. For the other two bottles I found that each one contained about 2.2 grams of carbon dioxide under pressure dissolved in the liquid! That is enough gas to fill up a liter bottle at standard temperature and pressure!

They actually closed down and then demolished those 4 smoke stacks a couple years ago or so. They were nick-named the four sisters in Mississauga. I used to live close by, actually even when I was there, I never saw smoke coming out of them. I think they've been turned off for some time. That must be an old picture.