Mon, 5 Sep 2005, 11:53 – John C. Jones REPLY TO Grant
Hello again Grant.
Thank you, as always, for the reply. Will those doing the legislating be the ones that the world really needs? That always remains a matter for debate (elsewhere, among those who enjoy debating).
The NATURAL POWER of water has again been revealed to us all, in the disaster experienced by the unfortunate people of New Orleans. Perhaps the necessary lesson will (at last) have been learnt.
To return to the content of your message, the material in question is, as you imply, a by-product of the consumer-orientated lifestyle which dominates most people’s surroundings. The original manufacturing process has not been considered as simply the first part of a series of processes which make complete sense when slotted together. It isn’t even viewed as part of a journey, as you so aptly suggest. To me, it seems very INEFFICIENT of manufacturers to produce goods in such a manner (i.e. without knowing where they will eventually reside). Furthermore, from a purely financial (businesslike) point of view, it obviously makes sense to MAXIMISE ONE’S PRODUCTION from a given amount of raw materials. Consequently, such environmentally-friendly developments are automatically profitable.
Some day, following sufficient appropriate education, there will be no need to “impose” such considerate behaviour on people, so the laws will eventually become unnecessary. No doubt, laws can be helpful in changing people’s perceptions (by banning enemy propaganda) as exemplified by the fact that cigarette-smoking is becoming less popular. When life is based on SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIES, non-productive items will automatically no longer exist, as life will not be geared to the manufacture of things which cannot be recycled. The concept of “non-recyclability” will simply not exist. This idea will eventually operate on a worldwide scale.
Legislation is only the beginning of the story. Only when the laws become unnecessary will we be able to say honestly that “common-sense” prevails.
The one and only J.
Sat, 3 Sep 2005, 00:41 – REPLY to John from Grant of the HoBB Gardens
” My perception of life suggests that EVERYTHING is merely a straightforward PRODUCT of something else ”
I think “waste” develops when produced. If a product maker knowingly evolves a product that will NOT be easy to recycle, it is a wasteful journey – one to be avoided. One day, legislation will be in place to try and control how (raw) materials are used.
Mon, 22 Aug 2005, 11:53 – John C. Jones TO GRANT
ON THE SUBJECT OF WASTE
Hello again Grant.
As I see it, this question of the general use of the word “waste” for something which need not be regarded as waste is the sort of problem which is caused by “brain-washing” instead of education. I know that I can convey the required meaning when I use the word “waste”, but I do not actually view anything as a waste of anything. As I may have written previously, current language does not always suffice to describe the situation when that situation is not clearly understood by the “dictionary-writers”.
My perception of life suggests that EVERYTHING is merely a straightforward PRODUCT of something else, so the question then becomes one of how we can use this product efficiently. It becomes waste only when some unknown entity “decides” that it IS waste, for some unknown reason. (Surely those who do not wish to drive a car might reasonably classify THAT item as “waste”.)
The purpose of THE ORGANISED CREATION OF WASTE might simply be to create jobs. Perhaps waste-disposal services were invented merely to create employment opportunities for those who do not like the idea of becoming self-employed. By that criterion, the more waste, the better.
Rather than accept the word “waste”, would it not be better to refer to these materials as “by-products” of some particular process?
By renaming this category of material, we have immediately taken a step towards removing the very existence of “waste”. Maybe there can only be ABSOLUTELY no “waste” when EVERYONE decides that he himself will not cause any. When the word does not even exist, however, he obviously CANNOT do it, as life will not be “geared” to the existence of “waste”. It will eventually no longer be part of the community’s lifestyle.
The one and only J.
Wed, 17 Aug 2005, 21:31 – Grant of the HoBB Gardens and Project House
ON THE SUBJECT OF WASTE:
I have never liked the word “waste”.
It’s one of those words people use when they have given up on time or materials.
There is a ‘Wasteless Society’. It is a Community owned Company in Shropshire. It deserves a mention here. Those interested in further information should contact : wasteless (at) kayec . me . uk
Thankfully, water recycles and whilst some may waste cleaned tap water by leaving a hose running, it does re-enter the cycle eventually.
Wed, 17 Aug 2005, 11:57 – John C. Jones REPLY TO GRANT
Hello again Grant.
Thank you for your clarification. As I suspected, the profit motive obviously governs the strategy. I will look into the history of the concept when I have a spare moment.
As you suggest, FUEL CELLS are indeed an interesting idea and they clearly demonstrate that WATER is far more powerful than most people realise (even after all the disasters).
Some months ago, I heard an Australian person describing the idea and predicting that such WATER-POWER will be available to the general public by the year 2020. Time will tell. (You might have a word with Ladbrokes about it while you are there!
The one and only J.
Tue, 16 Aug 2005, 08:50 – Grant to John C. Jones
Nuclear Fusion is a UK patented process I believe so the UK stands to benefit rather a lot. The UK has been dragging its heels maybe as I think the process was mastered over 30 years ago – maybe more. I’m sure someone will step in and give the full picture.
Whilst it’s not a very watery subject for this World of Water Blog, all of those supporting the Charity, “World of Water”, want to see the end of pollution from traditional Nuclear fission.
If Nuclear FUSION is all it is cracked (combined) up to be, there will be no such pollution – there might even be no pollution at all. There will certainly be no “Waste Product” after the fusion.
Now what we can talk about in a Water Forum Thread is “Fuel Cells” — Ahhh the fun of using CLEAN water to fill up your car and drive your central heating!!!
Sunshine by message
Grant of the HoBB Gardens and Project House
Wed, 10 Aug 2005, 11:50 – John C. Jones TO GRANT
Hello there Grant.
I have just remembered that I intended to raise this matter a while ago, after your comments on Nuclear Fusion and the £800 million investment.
We have all seen how eagerly the “big powers” combine their efforts to “set about” those of whom they disapprove. However, on matters of a peaceful nature, they seem to be less interested in joint activities. I have heard a number of reports on the development of nuclear fusion in various countries, particularly in the U.S.A. Surely it would be far more efficient (financially and operationally) for all these nations to combine their efforts in this field. Does such co-operation exist on these matters, or are they all fighting to be the first to succeed in order to claim some sort of superiority or maybe simply gain financially? It seems to be taking them a long time to sort out this problem, bearing in mind the vast resources at their disposal. Can you tell us any more about this?
I really do appreciate your efforts to enlighten us all on matters of this nature.