> From: Harry Goudie
>
> Using polystyrene
> in landfill is, I think ok, as it will decompose eventually
> nothing is ever
> destroyed it is only recycled.
>From one manufacturer's info page:
http://www.fullback.com/pt_environment.php
"The biological inertness of expanded polystyrene is especially suited for
building insulation. Expanded polystyrene products are inert and safe in
landfills, although they will not decompose."
"Polystyrene is a thermoplastic, which allows it to be continuously melted
and reformed, making EPS a highly recyclable product. Collecting expanded
polystyrene for recycling presents a challenge making consumer participation
critical to recycling success." (so, when melted, it just turns to a puddle
of goo, albeit a smaller volume than before, due to collapse of the air
pockets).
> From: Murray McGregor
>
> Scandinavia is about as eco-friendly as you can get. They cite
> environmental grounds in their reasoning behind using them. So at least
> some places with immaculate credentials would see fit to disagree with
> you.
Provided the old boxes were properly recycled, yes they could at least
qualify as not overly unfriendly, just not as good as wood. However,
recycling is not a legal option in most of the world if AFB is encountered,
only burning or boiling in lye -- both of which destroy these (and plastic).
Perhaps irradation, if availability spreads beyond Australia, would be an
option. The process of creating polystyrene and molding it releases pentane
(used to be several different CFC's) into the air (at low levels), which
contributes (a very small) amount to ozone problems. But the greater damage
is the use of oil (non-renewable) and and inevitable ending in the landfill
(face it, most people don't recycle) or release into the air and ground from
burning.
> From: Murray McGregor
>> >friendly paints, you could break and burn woodenware even inside, if in
a
> >small enough quantity).
>
> Up to a point yes, but you are left with more residue to dispose of in
> these cases than with polystyrene. Even if we are just talking about the
> nails alone.
>
Ashes are easily spread as fertilizer. The few nails (actualy, staples
mostly here) are easily recycled with other metal sources (and easily picked
up with a large magnet).
> Also, have you seen how degraded land is after a crop of trees has been
> felled? Only suitable for more trees without vast efforts to clear the
> roots and stumps. To get the sizes needed for deep boxes you need OLD
> trees too.
Yep. About 100 yards from the house, on the other side of our woods and
through the area. Tree cutters have been heavily soliciting private owners
of even small plots here, looking mostly for hardwoods. Of course, the land
is not suitable for anything else other than trees, so the stumps remain and
the seedling trees left will fill in some day. Nothing compared to the
devestation of areas that were strip mined or where mine tailings are
dumped, however (which is only related to beekeeping in that such areas must
be more than three miles from an organic bee yard -- assuming you could even
establish such in the eastern part of the US, due to the other rules on
isolation).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allen Dick
>
> Substituting polystyrene for wood may reduce other polluting practices
> associated with or arising out of using wood for supers. I just don't
> know, but can speculate that the process of cutting wood reduces the
> beneficial effect of forest and that the transporting, processing and
> preserving of wood present negative environmental loads as well. The
> additional load of transporting the relatively heavy weight of wood boxes
> back and forth to the honey house many times over the life of the wood, in
> terms of additional fuel consumed and the byproducts of that combustion,
> are not negligible. I would assume that many times the mass of
polystyrene
> supers would be consumed in fossil fuel. Possibly using polystyrene boxes
> might actually reduce overall petroleum stock consumption quite massively
> compared to the small amount of petroleum used in manufacturing them.
Possibly a good point. For pollinators, perhaps they could stack more bees
on a semi-trailer and move more on the same amount of fuel. Since most such
trucks get 4-6 MPG and there is essentially no change in fuel economy
dependent on "reasonable" loads, I would think that just reducing weight of
the load would have very little effect. For those pulling msaller loads
with personal vehicles, perhaps 1 MPG difference might be achieved,
dependent on the type of vhicle used.
> While we are discussing the disposal aspects od bee equipment, I should
say
> that I like Pierco frames much better than wood and wax, but I really have
> no idea of how to get rid of them after they have done their time, except
> to bury them somewhere, or burn them. I agree that burning makes produces
> many unattractive and toxic products.
My concern as well (and I have some plastic foundation in my hives, so I am
not blindly against its use, but concerned over its disposal). Burning
contaminated equipment is required in this state (although some treatment is
allowed, at the inspector's discretion) - but burning the plastic and
polystyrene would violate several ordinances (as would burning wood at
certain times of year in an open fire, but wood can be burned inside or in
an outdoor wood stove easily, if care is taken on what it is painted with or
dipped in (wax dipping would, I assume, leave no potential residue on
burning, fi the wax was not contaminated) and what types of treatments are
used). While burning wood does release quite a bit into the air, such
burning is still done by homeowners to keep warm (as are other, dirtier
fuels). Burned plasticware however, would result in a plastic mess in the
bottom of the location used.
Not to mention that most MSDS sheets on polystyrene warns of extremely toxic
fumes upong burning, requirements for a non-smoking storage facility (due to
combustible gas given off in storage, in one sheet), requirements to keep
away from sources of ignition. A quick search turned up no published MSDS
on the polystyrene bee hives, but there are many easily found on expanded
polystyrene products and the raw material (along with scare sites concerned
about such things as styrene accumulation in fat reserves of humans due to
use of polystyrene packaging at McDonald's -- I also did not find any
research on possble styrene accumulation in wax from such bee hives, which
could mean there is none or that no one has doene such research).
> In many cases,
> wood is not permitted to be burnt, but is buried for disposal.
I believe some areas here require burning and burial of the residue.
> From: Jorn ohanesson
> I have had my polystyrene hives for more than forty years now. They are
> still all fit and useable. All I have done to them is to assemble
> and give a one time dush of green water based paint
I am interested in your extended use of these boxes. Dr Tew apparently felt
they would not hold up well over time, with comments such as "soft", etc
(http://bee.airoot.com/beeculture/months/00aug/00august3.html), although
perhaps he is talking about a different product than you have?
> From: Bill Truesdell
> but it
> may be that oil does "grow back". There was a hypothesis many years ago
> that oil is in continuous formation and is not static. What was once
> thought of as oil seeping into old wells may be not old oil seeping in
> but new oil created from all the methane that exists in the earths
> mantel. The hypothesis now has many adherents.
I must admit I missed that one. Last time I had looked, the massive
vegetation die-off left the layers that became coal, while massive dinosaur
"burial sites" resulted in oil pools (although, of course, there were quite
a few steps in the actual conversion and dinos dying on the surface would be
converted to scavenger food or fertilizer, rather than oil). I would
imagine that the slow conversion of methane to oil won't help in the time
period in which oil will be depleted. BTW, oil contamination here in water
wells is usually due to new (small) oil wells being put in and initial
leakage getting into the limestone layers, to seep out for years into wells,
aquifers and streams (just had one in the news this year, due to its size
and length of time to cap off the initial spill). Perhaps we can figure out
a way to speed up the process, turning dairy "byproducts" into fuel for our
cars? Much in the way you can now have yourself cremated and turned into a
diamond? Note for those overseas, unlike many European operations, the
effluent from such operations here is normally just left to settle in ponds
or run off into rivers, rather than recaptured to produce methane.
|
