Ben Flikshteyn, MHC 200, Professor Alexandratos, 9.29.12, Weekly Response 4

It seems as if out of sight and out of mind is a common attitude when it comes to waste disposal. We have seen dredged soil from the Hudson buried in Texas. We have seen incinerators that put garbage into the air versus leaving it visible. Even landfills are not without problems. It is impossible to predict if they will leak, or hold. For example, an earthquake near San Francisco easily toppled the buildings on landfills. However, because these waste products are hidden from our sight we do not feel pressure to deal with them. Unfortunately, there is a limit to how much we can hide and bury and launching things into space is not yet viable. Fortunately, by analyzing what we throw away we can avert, or at least delay, the problems with our waste management strategies.

My favorite part of class this week was tracing the technological advances New York has made, by digging through its trash. Across the years 1905, 1939, 1971, and 1989 much has changed and much has stayed the same in the city’s trash. Food has made up a steady percentage of waste but ash has fallen form a colossal 80% to almost nothing. Conversely, paper, plastic, and metal compose growing amounts. The most staggering shift, however, is the appearance of a miscellaneous category in 1989 that takes up almost 15% of trash found in landfills. Disposable diapers, a luxury item, make up a tremendous amount of waste that must be dealt with. They are hardly the most necessary or most useful things we throw away and yet they are discarded en masse.

It so baffled me that we could allow so much waste to be generated for a product that used to be made of reusable cloth that I began trying to invent an alternative. I was toying with designs that have a layered diaper so that most of it can be reused, only disposing of the dirtied portion. I watch a show called “Shark Tank” in which inventors try to sell their business ideas to a group of “sharks”, or investors. This week, the episode featured a brand called FuzziBunz. A woman cited the same facts about the miscellaneous category that we learned in class and had the same reaction that I did. She invented a diaper that is extremely easy to wash (parents do not have to touch the soiled portion at all) and has priced it so that it actually saves parents an average of 2,500 dollars in diaper costs. Her product, along with imitations from competitors, has sold $40,000,000 in the last twelve years and is catching on.

This is an example where humans are overcoming the tendency to ignore what they bury. Diapers may be a dirty little secret, hidden under the title miscellaneous, but by studying what goes in to landfills solutions are uncovered.

This type of problem solving can be applied to many of the other things we throw away as well. Glass and plastic have become more mainstream materials, adding to the chemical complexity of landfills. It would be excellent to remove these from the equation. The five-cent deposit on plastic bottles is a good idea but it is out of date. Five cents was worth a larger percent of the total price of the drink when the return policy was implemented. If it were to be adjusted for inflation, many more people would save their bottles. Although it may seem to raise the price of drinks, causing concern among beverage companies, if the deposit were larger people would be sure to return the bottles and, knowing this, be unbothered by the extra cost as it is only temporary.

On an unrelated note I am thinking about starting to wear a mask on the subway or at least shelling out $200 dollars to get my bike fixed. Between the  steel in the air and what I’ve heard about the tuberculosis outbreak, the subway is becoming a scary place.

Reva McAulay

MHC 200 Weekly Writeup #4

10.1.12

Learning about the history of New York City’s waste was oddly enough the hands down coolest thing we’ve learned about so far.  There were so many weird historical events that could be seen in the trash records, not to mention the amusing idea that somebody has been keeping quite detailed records of what New Yorkers throw out for an absurdly long period of time.

The experiment about the air quality was also very interesting.  It shows how the results of a study can be so unexpected, considering that it seemed to be aimed towards comparing the air quality of two different neighborhoods but instead discovered that subways put dangerous steel dust in the air.  I can’t say I’m outraged either, this is not a case of blatant disregard for environmental consequences or government regulations like the Exxon Mobil thing.  Steel dust coming from steel on steel friction while braking is not exactly a crazy idea, nor is the idea that said steel dust would make its way into people’s lungs.  It’s impossible to eliminate pollution, and the MTA is only polluting subway tunnels, so only people who choose to take the subway are affected.  It’s just one of the risks inherent in every life activity, like the risk of getting hearing damage from the loud noises or falling off a platform.  If people care enough to kick up a fuss, the MTA will undoubtedly fix it, albeit probably in the cheapest and easiest manner even if it is less effective or flawed.  My guess though, is that, like the hearing damage, even if people knew they wouldn’t so much as pay a few bucks or take a few delays to get it fixed.

With a little bit of digging I was able to come up with some anecdotal information about the old-school soda bottles that had a deposit from the bottling company to encourage consumers to return the bottles so they could be washed and reused.  Apparently using plastic bottles and aluminum cans is cheaper, which is a shame since they are not reusable and often not recycled either.   The voluntary recycling of glass bottles paid 2 cents on a 5-cent bottle.  (http://voices.yahoo.com/coca-cola-cost-then-now-7162898.html?cat=37).  When the first deposit law was passed in 1972, a six pack of Coke cans cost $0.69.  That’s eleven and a half cents per can, meaning a five cent deposit would get you back close to half the cost of the soda.

Obviously, the deposit carries a lot more weight when its half the price of a beverage rather then a tenth or 1/20 of the price.  The additional fact that Michigan, of the ten-cent bottle deposits, has a near 100% recycling rate (compared to New York’s 75%, http://www.bottlebill.org/about/benefits/waste.htm) indicates that lawmakers should consider upping the deposit.  Not to mention putting in deposits in the 39 states that don’t have any at all.   On the plus side, New York added water and non-carbonated drinks to the deposit bill in 2009 in spite of stores complaining about having to accept cans, and bottles and drink companies complaining that the deposit raised prices and would reduce sales.

In the meantime, at least the mayor excluded incineration from the list of possible new waste-to-energy propositions, so we don’t have to worry about ending up in a Detroit-like situation.   Because basically every goal of the city is to avoid being like Detroit in any way.  But that still leaves somebody to figure out a cost-effective way to turn garbage into energy, one that is preferably still cost-effective after recycling and composting remove lots of NYC’s garbage.

William Arguelles

Spiro Alexandratos

Seminar 3

October 1, 2012

Opinion Paper 4

            Sadly, it appears this week that we didn’t have any super villan-esque companies or actions that we talked about. Yes, there was the discussion on the MTA Subway giving off steel particles, but that’s much more a bureaucratic nightmare than a truly evil conspiracy. In fact, I can even sympathize to an extent with the MTA. It would be a nightmare to have to install new train tracks and new trains that broke without fiction. I can’t see the public getting behind these upgrades if it means having no subway access for long enough to install them, let alone a fare hike to pay for them. No, to me, that’s a problem that needs significant political will and funding for infrastructure to ever get implemented. So until Washington decides new less toxic and faster frictionless-subways for NYC is important enough to create some kind of funding bill for, I see little to no change happening.  I guess Albany/Bloomberg could do some smaller changes, like installing filters and such, but a true overhaul of the entire subway system seems to be as likely as… you know I can’t honestly think of anything in that class of unlikelihood. I guess flying pigs, cause I assume some company is doing some weird genetic experiments to make chicken-y bacon or something.

But I digress from my point, which is that the MTA is not evil in this. I fully believe that if they could make their trains better, safer, and faster without completely shutting down or going bankrupt, they probably would cause it would mean more money for them. Of course, I’m probably just not jaded enough yet to distrust the MTA or something, but really, from a business standpoint, it would make sense to improve a product that is possibly carcinogenic and millions of people breath in every day. All they need is one guy who claims that the trains gave off steel particles that gave him some kind of cancer and has enough evidence to convince a jury, and the MTA have this gigantic class-action lawsuit on their hands. Maybe I’m being naïve, but I like to think the MTA would prefer to avoid that circumstance.

Of course, I can already see you scribbling in the margins “but Will, The MTA will just bury the study in some journal and hope no one ever finds it, that way they don’t have to pay and don’t need to fix the trains!” to which I answer that you found the study which connects the subway to steel particles in the air. Which means that the MTA knows that the public could know (if someone bothered to read an academic journal that is) that there is a link between steel particles and the subway. So they’d have to be idiots not to know that all it takes is one guy connecting steel to a cancer and tying the whole thing together, and they have a massive tornado of lawsuits coming their way.  So hopefully they have enough brainpower to know that they should fix it now, or they’ll be paying for it later and for the lawsuits. Hey, this is starting to sound familiar to GE in the ‘40s…

Oh god, we did learn about a horrible company, only this time, the horrible thing they did hasn’t happened yet! Well, it is happening, but we haven’t conclusively proved it and brought it to the attention of the public yet. Okay, maybe they’ll prove me wrong. Maybe they can overhaul the system. I mean all they’d need is some funding. Of course, we are in such a poor state economically that I can’t see the federal government approving this kind of “pork” for NY when we can barely pay for all the social services and defense spending as is. And I can’t see the NY government being willing to foot this kind of bill by themselves. Well, maybe we can install filters and glass paneling and hope for the best?

After reviewing many case studies about the toxic presence that certain practices present to not only the environment but also people, I understand even further the necessity of making meaning of our waste. What I mean by waste is not only the garbage we produce daily on an individual basis but also the waste we encounter when we travel or work. We have seemingly accepted the presence of incinerators, power plants, and other man-made commodities in places where we live and go to school. While all of these constructions make our lives easier, in terms of accessing power and dealing with the aftermath of our waste, they present a huge problem to our health and the environment. As is always the question, what shall we do then to rectify the problem? In my opinion, the solution is in awareness and small actions taken by everyone.

One case study that exemplifies the acceptance of waste or residue in our everyday lives is one in which researchers detected steel via monitors carried with students during the winter and the summer. In the winter, there were higher steel measures detected by the monitors due to the braking of trains; the students inhaled the steel particles when the trains braked. That no one, mainly speaking policy makers, did anything with this knowledge demonstrates the, at times, lackadaisical transportation system, which seems more concerned with convenience and profits, rather than the people’s safety. Just a few small changes may help implement safer conditions for travelers, especially those in New York City, who are so closely affected by the steel particles from the train brakes. If more money was invested into research to devise a more efficient and healthier system, many health problems and exposure to toxicity can be avoided. The problem still rests at, however, who is responsible for financing such an effort. In the end, matters become dust under the rug and nothing seems to get done.

Similar to this are the landfills and brownfields that are growing in size with waste such as plastic containers, paper, and disposable pampers. One cannot bypass the fact that humans produce waste. The focus, then, is not the cessation of waste production but rather the limitation of waste production. Although it may sound personal, one example of limiting waste is using less toilet paper or paper towels; that is, one should use what is necessary. The following question then surfaces: what are the limits of necessary? To me, necessary is the minimal amount required to effectively carry out a task without producing excess waste. In order to practice limits, as I have highlighted in previous responses, we must work towards a common goal of finding what necessary means to assist in preserving the environment and the safety and wellbeing of humans.

To not give the wrong impression, I must say that I have, at times, accepted toxicity in the environment and do use excess materials in life. To expound on this acceptance, I point to an example in my hometown and one in the area of the high school I attended. For a great portion of my life, I have lived in one house, which is located next to a light plant. Although the light plant does not produce any obvious danger, such as black fumes or wretched smells, I often ponder the effects on the health of my family and myself of having such a plant in close proximity. Thinking about the plant now, I never really took the time to look up the hazards of light plants next to homes. This example demonstrates that I accepted this juxtaposed light plant in my hometown. Similar to this is the sewage treatment plant in Rockaway Park, which is right across the block from the high school I graduated from. This institution had a greater impact on my senses than the light plant because the sewage treatment often produced a wretched smell. Even more, the plant is located extremely close to water and presents a problem to the cleanliness of the water. I did not once, however, take the time to do some research about or volunteer work in this area, and rather accepted that the problem was present and the neighborhood would find some way to fix the problem. My experiences with these two environmental hazards exemplifies that with small actions, such as educating oneself about the problem and then making efforts to eradicate the issue, we can collectively make the Earth a cleaner, healthier place.

It may sound cliché to say that every act counts, but in term of the environment, this notion may be true. If we all make the effort to reduce our waste production, such as using less or reusing resources, then we can reduce the adverse impact we have on the Earth, such as the toxicity that follows with landfills, brownfields, light plants, and more. A fortunate aspect of this science and technology course is that I gain exposure to the details of the issues. On a more generalized level, these details are helping me form a renewed appreciation for the environment and are making me feel uncomfortable, in the sense that I feel the need to take action, even in the smallest way, to resolve the environmental crisis.

Sherifa Baldeo

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 4 Response

In an ideal world, scientific studies and scientific evidence would lead directly into policy decisions. Government would institute and let expire regulations according to the most reliable studies. Of course, scientists are most often not the ones making public policy and politicians seem to be consistently willing to shunt environmental and public health concerns aside.

That is not to say there is plenty of ambiguity. Sometimes, even when there exists a preponderance of evidence that there is a risk, it is difficult to determine the proper response. For instance, the implications of the study concluding that underground subway platforms in New York City contain steel dust are disturbing and far-reaching. After all, few people who inhabit the city do not use the subways on at least an occasional basis. Many people inside and outside the city rely on it almost every day for the commute and errands. Thus, any problem with the subway system would seriously impact an enormous amount of people. This is an argument in favor of taking action but can also be used as an argument against change. After all, even the most basic maintenance induced changes in schedule and alterations of route are met with vitriol and anger on all sides by frustrated people trying to make their way to work. Here is a situation where any public policy must balance the evidence one side and the practical concerns on the other. Still, to do nothing is irresponsible and it tells us that society does indeed put a price on human life and public health. This price cannot be quantified as it is not always measured in dollars and cents but it is real nonetheless.  As a practical matter of course, no society can afford to protect its people against every possible harm and every possible danger.  Thus, those who make public policy are necessarily required to pick and choose what is “worth” legislation and coercion. It can only be hoped then, that they rely more on cold hard scientific fact rather than politics to guide their decisions.

In the case of the landfills in New York City, there seems to be plenty of data to consult. What struck me most about the lecture is the data indicating that the amount of garbage produced per capita in 1940 was double the average in the last twenty years. Interesting facts like this are discernible because of the comprehensiveness of the data. Perhaps the population density of the city, even at that time, forced municipal officers to pay more attention to such affairs. In any case, this surprises me because if anything, I would expect the reverse to be true. In our modern lifestyle, nearly everything we buy and everything we eat comes in layers of separate packaging. The average person certainly also goes through more paper in the course of a year than the average person seventy years ago. I would like to think this is at least partially due to the recycling programs instituted but of course have no data to substantiate that. However, 430 kg of trash is still a substantial amount and just seeing the numbers of the total amount of garbage the city produces as a whole over the course of a year is rather frightening. The deposit laws may have been effective in reducing the amount of plastic and glass waste but it would be hard to impose the exact same regulations on other types of garbage. But that doesn’t mean the same principle cannot be applied to help reduce waste. Some states have already instituted a tax for using plastic bags in grocery stores. Consumers seem to have adapted to this with little protest and many now tote the reusable canvas bags back and forth from the grocery store. This is important for the plastic saved as well as for the attitude and willingness of consumers to accept what is essentially a reduction of their rights for the benefit of the environment.

Being from Staten Island, I was able to relate to all of the talk about landfills. When on Staten Island and not at the Hunter dorms, I live with my family in fairly close proximity to the Fresh Kills Landfill, also known as the Staten Island Dump. Now, when passing through Staten Island, there is no way of knowing that the island is actually home to an enormous landfill. However, I remember growing up and smelling the foulness of the landfill every time I would pass by it. The Staten Island Mall is basically right across the street from the landfill, so the landfill was actually adjacent to residential and commercial areas.

I actually did a research paper and PowerPoint presentation on the correlation between the Fresh Kills Landfill and Lung Cancer on Staten Island for an internship I participated in during the Summer of 2010. I had noticed that several people in my neighborhood were suffering from lung cancer and I decided to look into it. I found reports from years past stating toxins that have been known to cause lung cancer and other health problems were detected in noteworthy amounts in nearby residential areas. This information was upsetting to me and I think better care needs to be taken when it comes to landfills.

Something that nearly everyone takes for granted is the idea of throwing out garbage. People just put their garbage out on the street on certain days when it will be picked it without giving any thought to where the garbage is actually going. We create millions of tons of garbage annually and it has to go somewhere. More people need to be aware that this is a significant problem and we need to make a more concerned effort to recycle, conserve, and search for alternative methods of waste disposal.

I found it shocking that disposable diapers are a significant part of the garbage we create each year. Firstly, that is disgusting because of what diapers are for. Secondly, this tells me that we need to find an alternative to disposable diapers. Perhaps people could start reusing their diapers, or a more efficient disposable diaper could be created.

With regards to the incinerator in Detroit, I am all for it for now. It is pretty much the best option we have for waste disposal and I think the people living in the area should just move away. Perhaps they could be given some sort of compensation such as a tax break to assist their transition. I do not, however think that incinerators a permanent fix. We need to find better, alternative methods of disposing of waste that will hopefully have no negative effects.

Citi Field, the home of the Mets, is a venue I enjoy going to because I am a huge Mets fan. Every time I go see a game, I cannot help from noticing the Brownfield that is Willets Point, also known as the Iron Triangle. The area is home to dozens of cheap, auto-repair, car shops, and junkyards. Because of the abundance of transmission fluids and other car parts, the area has become a Brownfield. Considering the area can be a very nice place to be, the city needs to clean up the Iron Triangle. I previously understood that there were plans to clean up the area, but many current storeowners are against being evicted because their shops are their lives. Somehow, a decision needs to be made.

P.S. I am a huge Seinfeld fan and I really appreciated the clip you played for us.

Our first class this week was particularly horrifying. It is no wonder that Detroit’s population is fleeing. Apart from the decaying infrastructure and other problems, toxic fumes are being pumped into the air! Smoke from paper products is bad enough, but plastic? I’d be interested in seeing some statistics on the cancer rates in Detroit. The cavalier attitude of the company running the incinerator towards both the wishes of the public and the undeserved tax credits it received was also appalling.
While I’d choose New York over Detroit in a heartbeat, some of the things we learned about our own city were also highly concerning. Everyone always talks about the city being dirty, but I didn’t think that meant that the subway stations are filled with particulate steel dust. Thinking about all the hours of my life I’ve spent waiting for trains has never been exactly joyful, but now it’s even less so.
Something that I was pleased to learn about was the widening of the tip of Manhattan with incinerated trash. Real estate in New York is crazily expensive, and if more can be created without displacing people in lower-income neighborhoods, that’s great. The downside, of course, is the potential leaching of harmful substances from the ash into New York’s waterways. I would think, though, that most such chemicals would have been removed during the burning process. Putting them into the air probably isn’t much better at all than dumping them in the water, but if the junk has already been incinerated, we might as well use the end product in a productive way.
The trends in refuse composition that we went over were interesting, if not too surprising. I would expect plastic to have been more than 10% of domestic waste by the ‘80s. Hopefully that seemingly low figure means that New York City’s recycling program saves a fair amount of plastic from landfills. A pie chart from nyc.gov shows that for 2004-5, plastic not designated for recycling was about 12% of residential waste, with recycled plastic making up 25% of the city’s refuse. So indeed, it seems that the plastic in New York landfills is largely reduced by recycling. The percentage could probably be shrunk even more if the city expanded its recycling programs to include more types of plastic. Types 5 and 6 stand out to me as particularly worthwhile. Currently, the city only accepts types 1 and 2. I see type 6 often enough, and 5 is used for most yogurt containers. At home I have two trash bags stuffed with empty Chobani cups, as my family eats a lot of Greek yogurt and Whole Foods accepts type 5 plastic to be recycled. This reminds me, I should probably haul those to Union Square before my mother gets impatient and just throws them out. It would be a lot easier, and the city would probably save a lot of plastic, if type 5 were collected. I must note that I don’t know how well types 5 and 6 can be recycled, though. I bring them up solely on the basis of their ubiquity. The city would probably need new equipment to process them, not to mention the energy needed to run the facilities, and it’s possible that the expenses would outweigh the benefit. I would definitely want to see the numbers before ruling it out, though: New Yorkers sure do eat a lot of yogurt.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/resources/wcs_charts.shtml#waste