Black plastic not so fantastic

Discussion in 'Planting, growing, nurturing Plants' started by darrenhatina, Aug 18, 2005.

  1. darrenhatina

    darrenhatina Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi all, Just wanted to winge about and seek advice on the layer of black plastic weed barrier that covers all the landscaped areas of my yard.

    What the previous owner did was lay the plastic covered with a gravel mulch around various useless exotic ornamental plants.

    For a short while this might have looked somewhat attractive but over the years it has turned into a dried out tangled mat of weeds, stones, and litter from the half dead plants.

    I can only imagine that black plastic has the same effects on the soil it would have if wrapped around my head; dehydration, starvation, and asphyxiation. Which is probably why they needed to install an irrigation system and buy a shed full of fertilizers and herbicide in a desperate and expensive attemp to keep the garden in order, until eventually giving up, defeated, never to garden again.

    My point is that black plastic weed barrier seems like an amazing way to weaken plants, destroy soil, raise water consumption, increase the apparent need for fertilizers and various 'cides, all the while encouraging the growth of...get ready... WEEDS!

    Are there any tips out there for getting rid of this enemy of the suburban permaculture garden renovator. I've tried pulling it up but it's a slow and painful process. Hopefully there's a better suggestion out there.

    Cheers,
    Darren
    .
     
  2. Tamandco

    Tamandco Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi Darren,

    My last house which I moved from 2 years ago, and lived at for 6 years had this dreaded stuff under some gravel paths and under a horrible garden which ran the entire length of the house.

    Hubby and I bought the house "in need of tlc". The house was disgusting but basically just needed a good clean and a lick of paint. The garden on the other hand was never to be resurrected and was the prime reason we ended up leaving.

    Anyway, back to this black plastic. It was a 'weed mat' and couldn't be torn, very difficult to cut and had over the years, intertwined some how with the soil and the pest weeds which had germinated over the top of it like oxalis. Somehow, it ended up embedded within the clay which had set, making it impossible to remove. I tried slashing it, digging the clay with a mattock, crow bar, soaking it. Nothing worked. I managed to get the majority of it up but much of it is still there no doubt, for the new owners to deal with. And as they're not gardening sort of people, probably won't notice it for a few years. :lol:

    The consequences of this stuff was that it actually caused the foundations to dry out on that side of the house, leading to cracking in the brickwork. So there you go, if the environment's not a good enough reason not to use it, perhaps this might be.

    The worst thing is that the clay underneath, couldn't even be recognised as clay.

    Tam
     
  3. SueinWA

    SueinWA Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,251
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This stuff is a nightmare! I've lived here for nearly 8 years and am still finding it. The fools that use it lay it down, then cover it with gravel or bark. Then they walk on it. The gravel punches holes into the plastic, and the weeds find their way through. After a while, the thin layer of whatever they topped it with usually breaks down or gets scuffled aside, and it starts to rot into chunks due to the UV degradation.

    All you can do is pull it up. There's no magic bullet for this stuff, unfortunately.

    Sue
     
  4. Richard on Maui

    Richard on Maui Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,405
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They do sell a weedmat that will break down after a few years, too. Not sure what you can do with all the crap that is already out there. If it makes you feel any better, I spent about 45 minutes wrestling with two big half rolled up carpet remnants yesterday that had about 5 years of subtropical weed growth enwtining them together. Whenever I see in Mollison's writings the suggestion to lay down carpet as a weed suppressant I think,
    "Noooooooooooo-oh!, there's a special kind of hell reserved for people that leave this stuff around for future gardeners to deal with...". That is actually what I think.
     
  5. SueinWA

    SueinWA Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,251
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WOOL carpet with a natural jute backing is probably fine for using as a weed barrier. Unfortunately, most carpeting made these days are polyester (read: plastic). Whatever happens to black plastic will happen to it, too.

    Sue
     
  6. Guest

    I have all that here...that black weed mat/mesh stuff...carpet and even those synthetic type of fluffly blankets. The mesh doesn't break down, and can be annoying because it keeps popping up and fraying, but the others break down. Fairly quickly too... We were having a weird moment amusing ourselves once, and set up a goat pen with some old stuff that was in need of a new purpose. An old TV, fan, lounge chair set up on a carpet square in the middle of the goat pen, just to keep our neighbours and visitors confused.. :lol: Mock-Plugged the fan into a tree.

    We left it like that for a few weeks and the goats loved climbing on everything. I don't think they ever worked out how to switch the fan off though... :roll: they started laying on the carpet, so we just left it there and when I went to move it to rake out a couple of months later, it just kept ripping and had deteriorated heaps. Could be the effect of urines maybe...speeding it up... but I put into the beds. I think fabrics are a really good base, and lets face it, there's not a lot of natural fabrics available today, so I just use anything that can hold water and slowly integrate.

    I raise all my beds up, so I just keep building onto the mesh stuff and adding mulch to any bits that pop back up and flap about after a wind. It is useful in some spots. Am glad I have it in the greenhouse, and up the banks around the house... trying to keep those banks clear would be a nightmare I think. Things seem to grow through it fine though...I just cut a cross to plant through and there are some well established trees and shade plants growing through it now... tis covered in a nice natural floor litter, instead of the grass and weeds that would have been there otherwise. Works for me.

    I have no idea how long the fluffy blankets were hidden under the chip bark. At least 2 years. When I began clearing to put in some more beds, I ended up with all this rotten really brittle fabric from 2 double blankets. It kept ripping as I tried pulling it up and actually felt pretty good...had worms in it. I put it into the base of the beds in shreds. Very good lettuce, radishes, beetroot and onions in those beds at the mo... I think if I was to actively try and control weeds, which I don't - other than to keep covering in mulch - I would probably use blankets from an op shop.

    I must have different soil here, I think. Because each time I have ever pulled anything like that up around the house yard, I find gorgeous soil, heavy with earth critters. It isn't dry at all - very moist and I thought the 'cover' must have provided some sort of water retention... Maybe it is different climates too? I'm sub-tropical. The flappy bits down the side are on shale, and that's gonna need a bit more than a blanket to get any moisture into that, but its also a retaining bank - so I haven't done anything much with that. That IS dry though - even when its wet!

    So I dunno...Does it need to come up? Can you just build up and consider that the base of your bed? Sounds easier.
     
  7. frosty

    frosty Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I certainly think using carpet is a very bad idea

    carpet contains so many chemical toxins that in parts of Europe old carpet cannot be disposed of at a household rubbish tip it has be be taken to a Toxic Waste Dump

    even wool carpet still has all the toxic glues which are large part of the problem and Scotch Guard ( still legal in Australia ) has now found to be very bioaccumulative and has been found in humans see my thread in chemicals and human health

    https://forums.permaculture.org.au/viewtopic.php?t=693

    this quote on Scotch Guard from the link there



    frosty
     
  8. Guest

    Well until they decide to start polluting other planets and disposing of waste in some other way, other than returning it to the earth, I will continue to mix it with the earth and disperse it in small quantities. Piles of contaminated waste areas are not likely to be of any better use to us or the earth, I don't think. Beside the poverty stricken will eventually have to live on it... or we will have large areas declared useless.

    If folks are really serious about radio active, toxic emissions and leeching effects of plastics, glues, carbons, and synthetics - then you should probably move away from your computer, televisions, phones and even the seat your sitting in for a bit...because all that stuff is leeching NOW as we speak. It doesn't just start when we have finished calling it useful.

    Many products remain relatively harmless, until we start moving them or attempt to dispose of them. A sheet of asbestos for example could deteriorate at its own rate 2 feet under the ground without any directly negative impact on people...you could even grow food on top of it without any negative affects - BUT - the moment you start fussing and saying "get it out, I refuse to have such products here" you are endangering yourself and anyone who comes into the contact with the product once it comes back into contact with the air.

    We are surrounded by products that the earth is responding to as best as it can and the moment we introduce anything, the planet begins its process of slow integration...Anyone ever wonder why we have to dust? Why rust forms? The rotting or composting system exists everywhere, not just in our pre-defined heaps or bins. We complicate this by combining products - always striving for the ultimate tool or piece of equipment, and we cause MAJOR environmental problems when we MASS DUMP our waste. Toxic Waste dumps cause huge environmental concerns - not simply because the waste is defined toxic and there is no currently suitable way of disposing of it - but more so, by the fact that the more items that are defined Toxic, the more potential there is, for Mass Dumping. Mass dumping is ineffective, dangerous and can have a massive effect on surrounding waterways, plant and animal life, production and our own survival, as the earth struggles to respond to it. Conscious and considerate dispersal provides the earth with a much better chance of responding directly to the problem of poor or diminished integration potential.

    I see no point at all, in running around declaring everything toxic - if we (or those before us) are/were not prepared to stop producing and using the products, then they need effective dispersion and more research is needed as to how we respond to the chemical unions WE CREATED in order to then aid in the breakdown process. Increasing sensitivity to the toxic cause is not the answer, in my opinion. What benefit is it really to run around decrying everything useless and dangerous? Decreasing sensitivity and looking for effective means of working with the planet to help it process the products of the 21st century is really our only option.
    Science created it. Science can undo it. Much better to direct your campaign towards those with the know how and understanding that everything that can be created by a union, can be again seperated.
     
  9. frosty

    frosty Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    HI rainbow

    I am trying not to feel attacked :?

    the first sentence there says it all ..........

    we need to stop producing useless and very toxic items like carpet, the multitude of petro based plastics, toxic solvents etc etc

    to get companies to stop producing them consumers need to be educated so they stop buying them

    I hope that by making people aware of the problem whenever I can it may change opinions

    and since I thought people on this board were interested in permaculture thus sustainablity I thought not polluting the earth was part of that :? if I am so out of step with the views of everyone here perhaps I shouldnt post anymore ?

    decreasing sensitivity and finding ways to dispose of toxins ( undo the mess ) after we have messed up the planet thus the ecological balance is NOT sustainability

    some things just cannot be undone

    and the numerous people who are sensitised certainly cannot be desensitised

    perhaps a "final solution" is needed to stop us upsetting those who find it irksome that we exist :roll:

    zieg heil

    edited to say yes I know I didnt succeed in not reacting to the attack ......but I am not a saint and such attacks are getting more common everywhere ........ seems it is not cool to frown on these status symbol consumer items and point out to people when they are polluting the planet

    silly me thought the people here might have really felt differently :roll:
     
  10. Guest

    Rest assured Frosty, you are not under attack. I thought I was speaking with you. It just happens that I disagree with some of what you have said. That does not mean I am attacking you - I am simply presenting my views as you do.

    If you were under genuine attack, rest assured I am sure the military you continue to defame, would willingly jump to your rescue without need for an apology. They have a job to do and history suggests they would not run away from their post if challenged.

    We live in a progressive society. Human beings by nature are progressive. To suggest that people would ignore the products of progress is somewhat unlikely. Carpet was in its time a marvellous invention...the folks in the slab huts would have loved it instead of scattering flour bags and newspaper. It's use led to a variety of health complaints and it was soon found to be far from easy to keep clean, so its use diminished and was generally replaced by more user friendly coverings and applications (in our country anyway - can't speak for the colder areas or countries).

    The fact we are now left trying to work out how to dispose of such things is easily lost in your sentiments. Creating an environment that is able to sustain the effects of societies progress is the focus of permaculturists. Creating a permanent culture of environmently aware and proactive people is vitally important. We also need to work constructively toward solving the existing problems and denying the potential for improvement really doesn't help. Casting something as "toxic and bad" does not solve the problems that exist. It only compounds them.

    Solvents may well herald the answer to the problem....

    When chemicals combine to create a plastic, metal, fabric, whatever, the process can also be reversed. However, research is not currently directed into this area of environmental management, because the focus remains on further PRODUCTION of less harmful useful substances. Why? Because folks keep jumping up and down about the effects of substances that the scientists themselves are discovering. The demand for the developed product remains - and you seem to be ignoring that.

    So, research continues in terms of improving and altering the product, but we get no practical or effective means of disposing of the "ineffective, useless and dangerous" developments. They are collected enmasse and stored underground where the effects are not obvious until some poor bugger buys it and tries to live on it. We need only consider how slowly a branch breaks down in our gardens, to understand how mass dumping (often accumalated waste the size of several houses) taxes the environment enormously. If folks jumped up and down and demanded some attention (and funding) be directed at addressing the common problems that already exist in terms of waste management (tyres, batteries, oils, electronics, plastics, liquids etc) and the need to convert this waste through chemical reduction processes, instead of trialling new potential products, we may see some progress in this area. As it is we are on a constant roundabout of new products, identification of limitations, and an increasing list of toxic wastes.

    The more we complain about the effects of chemical components, the more we further their "development". That is just the way it works.

    I assure you much research has taken place into the potential for and success of desensitation. I am not a big fan of Pavlovs work, but he was a significant contributor to that topic. As was Skinner.

    I don't find you at all irksome. I enjoy reading your posts, and they make me think - I like that. Your heightened sensitivity to objection is a bit annoying though. I don't deny your health problems, existence, right to be here, right to speak... so I don't really know how or why you have interpreted it as such.

    I am a researcher Frosty. My mind is trained to look outside the box. If I challenge you with my objections, it isn't personal. It doesn't mean I don't like you. I don't even know you. It is difficult for me to accept absolute statements, without challenging them, because my mind immediately looks for the effects of that statement. If you would prefer I didn't comment on your posts, I won't - but I do enjoy reading them and have enjoyed our exchanges.

    I wish you peace.
     
  11. Tamandco

    Tamandco Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ummmm.... I'm a bit hesitant to enter this discussion here but have been waiting for a thread on this subject to come up for some time.

    I'm not going to comment on any of the previous posts as I don't have enough knowledge to be able to put forward a view either way. My point of discussion is:

    'Refuse, Reuse, Recycle'

    That is the message pushed by the local councils in our area, but do they really do much to enforce this attitude in the residents.

    (i) No one, other than the already converted, knows what the hell 'refuse' means. I thought up until 2 years ago, it was refuse n items rejected as worthless waste only to find out from a greenie friend of mine that it was refuse v withhold acceptance of or consent to. It's almost as if the council fulfills it's obligation by promoting the motto, but apart from selling a few worm farms and compost bins, does very little to educate the public. Those already interested, already know. The message has to be directed towards those who are either ignorant or resistant to change.

    (ii) The councils in their effort to promote recycling and reduce waste receives very little (and that's being generous) support from the state and federal government. The public are made responsible to refuse v certain products due to the way they are packaged and sold, or for long term impact the product itself has on the environment. Instead, the government should enforce it's power and prohibit the manufacture of unessential items fitting this description. I term unessential as packaging. Why do products need to be packaged? They don't. Supermarkets might be taking a stand on discouraging the use of plastic bags, but why do they have plastic bags in the first place. What's wrong with paper bags. It's made from a renewable resource and is biodegradable. Bunnings now charges it's customers who take a plastic bag, and the supermarkets could charge for their paper bags, further encouraging customers to use their cloth bags

    If you buy a packet of batteries, or an extension cord, or a toy for your kids, they are packaged in the worst, moulded, clear plastic packages which are not only dreadful for the environment, but impossible to open. Why is this necessary. Why can't they just be presented loose and be scanned individually?

    You look at the cost of many items, and the majority of the cost is for the packaging of that item. Unwanted, uneccessary packaging is forced upon us, then we are charged extra for them.

    The government needs to ban the manufacture of these such packages in this country. It's not a huge ask but will require a rally of committed objectors and perhaps 10 or 15 years.

    The manufacture of polystyrene should be banned. I purchased new electrical appliance and had to deal with masses of polystyrene packaging. What happens to this stuff and how is it disposed of?

    Why are loaves of bread from the bakery now sold in plastic bags? Why is meat from the butcher sold in plastic bags? What happened to butcher's paper? The deli at Woolies still uses it, albeit with plastic inside, but still, What happened to that sandwich wrap stuff they used to line the butcher's paper with?

    (iii) Why are manufacturers of plastic containers allowed to print the recycling numbers 4, 5 & 6, when the recycling companies can't or won't accept them. People who don't know any better pick up a tub of margarine from the supermarke and thinking they're doing the right thing, turn it over to check if it can be recycled. Sure enough, there's the triangle thing with the number 6 inside. Great, they buy it, and when they go to put it in their recycle bin, discover (providing they bother to check) that their council's recycling contractors don't accept anything above a 3! Can the other numbers be recycled? If so, the councils should give the contracts to companies which accept these other plastics. If they can't be recycled, the manufacturers of the containers should not be permitted to print the recycle logo (triangle) on their products.

    Furthermore, you want to buy a tub of margarine and notice there is a triangle with a #6. So you look for one with a 1, 2 or 3, which your recycling company will accept. There are none! Not one.

    Icecream containers - not recyclable
    Margarine containers - not recyclable
    Cheese containers - not recyclable
    Medicine containers - not recyclable
    Cosmetic containers - not recyclable


    Who's with me on this?

    Tam
     
  12. Guest

    Hi Tam - yes I am with you. Responding is necessary.

    The awareness program was originally a US program, taken on somewhat superficially by local governments here from what I can gather. Originally it was Reduce, Reuse and Recycle, and Refuse was added after people began asking questions exactly like what you have just posed.

    When folks started saying SO WHAT DO WE DO WITH PLASTIC BAGS, CONTAINERS ETC.... It was suggested they refuse them, as in - stop buying them.

    Again - refering back to practicality, price, ongoing demand and general consumer issues, refusal has proven to be a less than satisfactory response. People still want the icecream, marg, cheese, medicines etc. They aren't willing to forgo them - and yet recycling and reusing is not responding to the problem and actually reducing the products distribution.

    This situation has created an inert situation. Whereby we have people objecting, saying they don't want the wrappers - but food providers are servicing larger markets and planning for transportation, presentation, security, pricing, hygene controls etc as part of their marketing, and folks keep buying them, because they want them. Bakers are no longer supposed to handle raw breads, so the possibility they will hand you an unwrapped loaf today is highly unlikely, even if you requested it. They would be too fearful that if caught doing so, they would be shut down subject to a heath inspection, I suppose.

    Reduction was originally intended to mean "buy less" - or buy in bulk to minimise packaging, depending on how you look at it...but it also highlighted the potential for chemical reduction. I find it interesting that it has slowly slipped from the "promotions".

    Reduction of solid wastes - and locating alternate uses or means of disposal/reduction is possibly the most important response of all the promoted responses in terms of waste management. If instead we were to fill our walls with computer monitors instead of hay bales, we would be proactively managing waste.

    There was a guy - Petcavich - who developed a dissolving plastic back in the early 90's. He created a plastic that could be dissolved in water. When he first announced what he had done, he drank it to show he had put it through all manner of tests and honestly believed it was safe. His research could have changed our waste accumulation significantly.

    Guess what? He was howled down by environmentalists who objected to dissolved plastics entering our water systems. Doesn't matter that our trees and soils are already struggling, and our water ways are polluted directly and by leeching and clogged up with undissolved plastics...but heaven forbid we add one more invisible chemical to the planet!

    I consider myself an environmentalist - but I won't object to progress without having a real good look at what is involved. We could argue with the government till we were grey, and I doubt we see any change - they won't mess with it. Remember the GST only applies to packaged goods! The way I see it, the changes you want (reduced packaging) are in place here if I buy from local vendors...it's when I go over to town and visit a supermarket that I encounter all the plastic. So we stop going, or go, but just buy locally?...where we can bring eggs, fruit veg, home in a bucket and cheeses, yoghurts etc in cloth or ceramic?

    Things like equipment and the styrofoam...mmm...dunno how much say we'd have over foreign imports...

    Might make all the difference to our local producers though if we actually backed them...they'd probably all fall over in shock. :lol:

    Someone asked recently why local producers can't grow at the same price they can....it is because they aren't growing for a local market. They are growing for overseas and interstate markets, because there is no local demand. So we end up paying equivalent prices. Give them a local market and everyone wins.

    Gotta fly - am sorry if my writing appears abrupt or something??? Not sure why you would hesitate to join the conversation. I keep trying to fit in posts between life and maybe they are coming out too direct or abrupt? They are not intended to be in any tone. Just talking and I tend to talk directly and say what's on my mind. Am not here to offend.
     
  13. Tamandco

    Tamandco Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for your response Rainbow. I'm hesitant to enter a debate such as was occuring because (i) I don't have enough knowledge to have an informed opinion, hence (ii) I don't have enough knowledge to make an informed contribution. So I just sit back and read.

    Did I mention that I got my orchard in on Wednesday?

    2xapples
    2xpears
    2xplums
    1xapricot
    1xcherry
    1xpeach
    1xnectarine

    Waiting with baited breath with my Fowlers jars at the ready!

    Tam
     
  14. Guest

    That's great news Tam. I lost my apple this year...After 4 years of struggling in the wrong soil and climate, it finally gave me two of the cutest wee apples about the size of plums and then gave up on me.

    I am slowly replacing some of the more fanciful things I imagined in my "personal garden of eden" here for citrus as we have ideal citrus conditions. The peaches are in blossom at the mo and am hopeful about some paw paws down in another area. Not sure how they are going, will have to try and remember to check tomorrow. I would love to grow cherries and blueberries. I have strawberries coming on now, and would just love some blueberries... but have had no luck with them. Again, wrong conditions I think...Another packaged product I have great difficulty refusing...but the containers make good seedling cups.

    I ran guinea pigs under my mulberry last year and that seems to have been good for it. Looks a lot healthier and happier.

    Remember that pen I decided to seed with vegies instead of natives and grasses? Well it is happening. Lost a third of the corn to a rangy rooster, and no sign of the lettuce, but cabbages, celery, carrots, beetroot and chinese vegies (I just call them all that, because I never remember their names...pak choy...something...there's about 6 Chinese type vegies that you just chop and add to stirfrys etc.) are all up now, and I mixed rockmelons with honey dews and ran them along the front fence... one/both of them has begun sprouting too. So far so good. Am quite impressed with it actually, and figure even if it doesn't work (food wise) the house garden will still feed us, and the goats will certainly be in for a surprise when they get back there.

    Only obvious problem is that I have is I have to run the goats through it to get back to pen one :shock: :lol: That could be fun.
     
  15. frosty

    frosty Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    rainbow

    I dont mind a debate and I certainly dont mind people disagreeing with me ..........

    I post on lots of political boards and the problem certainly is not that I cant take the heat or dish it out back at you :p but I just dont think this board is the place for that

    I think this board is intended to be for freindly debate and if you want a friendly debate you have to watch those little barbs you throw in :roll: there were several in your previous post ( and the tone did infer environmentally sensitive people are just a nuisance )

    and this one below stands out in this post

    I can assure you nothing I say here or anywhere else defames the military because they are just waiting for an excuse to sue me for defamation because they dont like the truth about how they treat ordinary Australian communites with such contempt getting out

    so I always make sure what I say about them is the truth .......... because telling the truth no matter how much people may not want it aired is NOT defamation

    so its up to you .......

    I too enjoy your posts and am grateful for the info you helped with about goats

    I am quite willing to debate any POV as long as it doesnt get personal

    but if my POV is going to irritate you to the point where you have to fire those defensive little personal barbs I wont persist here

    frosty
     
  16. SueinWA

    SueinWA Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,251
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "The more we complain about the effects of chemical components, the more we further their "development". That is just the way it works."

    What???

    How on earth would complaining foster more development? I always thought that what promotes more development is cheaper ways to make more profit, and never mind the drawbacks. If the materials an American company uses are too dangerous to be allowed in America, they just farm it out to China, Korea, India or Indonesia, where few people will care if workers go directly from working to rigor mortis.

    What furthers development is greed, plain and simple.

    Tam, you ask why everything is packaged. Isn't Oz just like America, where our brainless government tries to protect every single person from every kind of known (& unknown) danger from every source, from every place, under all circumstances? This didn't happen overnight. People used to have brains that they actually used, but over time, they got used to have their government do their thinking for them. They don't see this as a danger, but a RIGHT!

    It's pathetic, really. I think we should take all the plastic wrappers off the products, remove all the warning labels, and let Nature take it's course. Those that are capable of thinking will survive, and those that think dragging a bare piece of beef home on a piece of string probably (eventually) won't. Survival of the fittest. Think of it as adding chlorine to the shallow end of the gene pool.

    Here in the U.S., our government created public schools so they could control the population from childhood by teaching it to think "properly" (aka do as it's told), and now we've got the "trickle-down effect": many people are too dumb to survive. They are totally unable to think for themselves about anything. Except money.

    We've got people who could watch a politician stab Mother Theresa (if she were still alive) on national TV, and six months later, they would probably vote him into another term of office. I'm talking REALLY SHORT-TERM memories here!

    By the time the average American finally decides to grow a brain, it will be far too late for this planet!

    Sue
     
  17. Guest

    It is scientists who identify and combine the chemical ingredients of products. Environmentalists didn't identify CFC's for example - or the effects of them. Science did and then environmental scientists and astronomers united to monitor the effects. New products remain subject to trials of up to ten years after they are released onto the market.

    When we identify a chemical component that is contributing to problems of any kind - the line of product is not "black banned" or "withdrawn" as the media presents it. It is withdrawn for further research. So the product is recalled for reassessment and further research, the market is assessed alongside sales, and the product is redeveloped in response to the problem (in this case, by removing identified Chloroflurocarbons).

    As long as societies are buying the products (fly sprays, perfumes, cleaners, degreasers, etc. etc.) the will be no absolute removal of these products.

    I will reword it. The more public opposition to a component in any chemical (identified by science) furthers its development.

    You may get rid of "Jacks Fly Spray" momentarily, but rest assured it will be back with a whole new marketing program designed to respond to the new market.... "Jills Fly Spray - a sensitive, low allergy, environmentally aware spray designed for the modern woman" :lol:

    To protest without a solution - to make noise without offering a progressive option that directs the problem towards an alternative solution - has been seen to detract from the cause. We all saw that leading up to the war in IRAQ.

    If we are unable to provide a globally efficient alternative or response that suits the majority of stakeholders and still allows for progress (suggesting we step backwards, will never work) there is little point making noise in the first place. All it does is rally more protest and more research - usually in the wrong areas, because big business has already has a significant investment in the product.

    Environmental scientists have one hand tied behind their back...they (NB Frosty - like Australia's military :wink: ) are Everyday Australians with jobs. They work in areas that are funded in general, by big business (largely Pharmacuetical companies) and unless people rally behind Environmental Organisations the research remains largely steered by business. If we can support local organisations like Landcare, Greenpeace, and or any substantial group that exists in our areas, financially and encourage them (by active voting at their meetings) to implement waste reduction research, we may see a difference. Many of these groups currently provide monitoring research that is useful for reporting, but we actively need scientists working toward a solution.

    At present they are working largely to further production.
     
  18. Tezza

    Tezza Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Plastic Bloody Plastic.

    Now Now Kiddies I wish you lot would behave yourselves
    dont argue BECAUSE this is what "they want"to happen .Whilst we are fighting amongst ourselves we arnt helping our own causes are we
    .
    Were all on the same side here>As another body of people who care about the people on this planet say as their motto "UNITED we stand"
    "Divided We Fall".
    There are some very genuine people in here,Informative,experienced,and well meaning.
    You ALL KNOW what to Do for the best,For not only ourselves,but the planet as a whole.Why the hell are we argueing with each other still. :?: We all are entitiled to a theory on how life should be,even me lol...
    Its up to us to sort out this "MESS" instead of shamefully hiding from our grandchildren in the not too distant future...
    We Have/Belong to one of humanitys saving graces "Democrocy"

    But me myself am thinking that its too late anyways.Most experts say that its too late now...I think weve got 6.3 billion Neros fiddling while Rome Burns and plenty of people out there helping Nero keep those flames flaming....
    Time is NOW....To vote for the right people for the right job.....
    Vote not only at the ballot boxes but at the shop counter.The office counter, The supermarket manager. .educate your children/grand children..Never give up "NEVER"
    Now children kiss and make up say sorry and be freinds ok......
    Thats enough BEHAVE YOURSELVES....
    DAD
    Tezza
     
  19. Guest

    Why is this discussion being interpreted as an argument???????

    Would it be better received if I simply agreed with all sentiments and just contributed "Yes Maam's and Yes Sir's" ?

    I am not angry - nor am I intentionally trying to evoke an argument. I am presenting information for members to consider - in response to the suggestion that more products be determined toxic.

    This is a Permaculture research discussion forum. The members are supportive and encouraging of each other and progress. In general, I support much of Frosty's sentiments, however it would be hypocritical of me to sit silently when she has suggested adding to the increasing landfill and toxic determinants list. I do not support such a movement, and respond as proactively as I possibly can to the problem of waste management and reduction. I received no reply to this, other than the suggestion I had attacked by disagreeing with them.

    My suggestion that we consider our products potential for integration was shutdown by an absolute statement that promotes an increase in toxic waste sites. (IE Carpet belongs in toxic waste sites). That does not and never will fit into my goals or understanding of environmental sustainability.

    I attempted to share that understanding - that is all. When questioned by Sue, I further clarified. I genuinely want people to understand what I am sharing and it is frustrating that it has become lost in personal issues. I would like for people to consider the issue of reduction and how this can be effected. We have each bought or are buying property and we inherit the legacies of previous owners management practices. We all have to deal with it.

    I have made no intimations that Frosty's Point of View is a nuisance and attempted to clarify that at the first opportunity. I simply disagreed. A right she first effected when she posted the article on the UK toxicity determination. I welcome discussion and believe it is through sharing that we grow and learn. I realise chemical sensitivity is a personal issue for her and would offer her every support. However, any attempts to broaden her perception and experience by any members are met with self confessed personal ranting or declarations of toxicity that really only constitute a protest. Protests do little but detract from the issue being discussed, and as I have attempted to explain, also further development of the products objected to.

    The military has one of Australia's biggest research departments. Diminishing its work is ineffective and speaking of those Australians as separate from the rest of the community is disrespectful and far from constructive. More bombs were lobbed on Darwin than Pearl Harbour. Our military has a long history of protecting this country, and if there are direct environmental protection considerations then it would be far more conducive if their researchers were treated as allies rather than enemies.

    I simply presented readers with a look at the effects of sensationalism and how we can facilitate practical research to support the issues at hand. I asked members to consider their contributions to waste management and ways in which it can be reduced, and support their local researchers with protests backed by workable alternatives and active solutions.

    I don't come here to enter personal arguments. If people think I am participating in them, then I am sorry, but you are wrong. I am here, but I'm not arguing. Someone could scream like a lunatic in front of my face, and I'd just laugh, and get on with what needs doing. I guess it is hard to get to know personalities over the net...

    I come here to share what I'm doing and am interested in what others are doing. When I'm presented with things I haven't considered, I weigh them up and actively try to integrate those ideas where possible. If someone is unable to present me with a good reason why we should direct all carpet, blankets and weed meshes into toxic landfill sites, then I will just get on with using each of them as water retainers and disperse them as thoughtfully as I can, based on todays research and my current understanding.
     
  20. frosty

    frosty Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Plastic Bloody Plastic.



    I absolutely agree ........

    I cannot see that getting science to find solutions to allow companies and people to keep polluting the planet can ever be the answer ...... it seems to me to be the total opposite to sustainability ........

    it sounds a lot like George Bush's solution to global warming - let it happen and let science find ways to live with it ........

    we as consumers have to stop buying these toxic and totally unnecessary products ........

    as Sue said as a society we are being brainwashed and dumbed down ......... ( the US as usual is leading the way but Australia is following hot on its heels ) the corpoarte owned govt with the help of the corporate owned media want to create a nice group of consumers who do nothing but work to buy more goods :roll:

    and the Corporation has ONE sole purpose to make money ........ the environment and our health and welfare does not count ........ if you dont believe me try and watch the documentary called "the Corporation

    many do have a safer alternative eg plastics and paints can be made that are plant based but they are are more expensive and the profit margin would not be so great !

    it may seem like a step back but eventually when we run out of oil we we will have to "step back" because there will be no alternative !

    as to disposing of the waste we have already got ( be it bought personally or created by companies ) it must be disposed of in a manner that will do the last harm to the environment

    of course those who create it do not want the responsibilty - so if we can all be persuaded there is nothing wrong with using old carpet to keep down weeds or burning our plastic in our backyard it is to their benefit

    yes it is bd that we have to have toxic waste dumps but it is safer for EVERYONE to keep all thes toxins contained in one place where they will do the least harm

    frosty
     

Share This Page

-->