Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 5]

[Clockwork Cupcake]

NRG1976 said:

Does our recycled rubbish really go to be recycled, or does it end up at 3rd world landfill sites via intermediaries?

It gets tipped over the edge of the world, on account of the fact that it's flat. But, secretly, the lizard aliens who are actually in charge collect it as it floats down into space and use it for nefarious things.

[Nethybridge]

I believe our unwanted electrical and electronic goods
end up in Asian countries where during school holidays
children strip down components

in order to harvest silver, copper, etc.

[generationx]

Nethybridge said:

I believe our unwanted electrical and electronic goods
end up in Asian countries where during school holidays
children strip down components

in order to harvest silver, copper, etc.

Your poems are getting worse

[StevieBee]

NRG1976 said:

Does our recycled rubbish really go to be recycled, or does it end up at 3rd world landfill sites via intermediaries?

Yes. It does.

The act of recycling is placing a commodity back into the supply chain. There is a value attached to it. It gets sold and the revenue offsets the cost of your waste and recycling services.

Around half of UK recycling is done via export. It would seem somewhat daft if somebody bought it, shipped it half way round the world then dumped it in a landfill.

But that does sometimes happen. There's various reasons for this but the main one is contamination; that is the material is not to the expected specification. In this case, the letter of credit won't be honoured so the material gets dumped. But it still gets recycled by the informal recycling sector you find in developing nations which is where a lot of the materials go.

But that is rare. Your plastic bottles, paper and glass will get used to make new stuff.

(Behaviour Change Communications guru for the Waste Sector... worked with 150 Local Authorities in the UK and in 30 countries, mainly low-income, developing nations so fire away if you have any other questions on this one! )

[hidetheelephants]

StevieBee said:

(Behaviour Change Communications guru for the Waste Sector... worked with 150 Local Authorities in the UK and in 30 countries, mainly low-income, developing nations so fire away if you have any other questions on this one! )

Some plastics are regarded(or marked as) unrecyclable, convenience food packaging being the most visible to me, others perhaps so if contaminated; what's the hurdle stopping the various pyrolysis schemes being scaled up to deal with UK polymer waste domestically? Is it purely cost?

[Cotty]

48k said:

Cotty said:

48k said:

It will be down to the house style of the station concerned.

They may not also use their real name - when I did travel news I had several made-up names depending on which station I was broadcasting on.

If you can just make up a name, whats the point?

There are myriad reasons TBH.

Branding / client contractual reasons is one example. If you are voicing bulletins for more than one station they may not want the same person on more than one station, or if you are pre-reccing then it avoids issues of "Person X" reading two different bulletins on different stations at the same time.

Another example is if you are doing travel news AND also presenting shows on a different station, you may want to keep your presenting persona separate from your travel news persona.

Another example is if you are voicing a BBC bulletin at 2 mins past the hour, whose house style is very BBC and straight laced, then at 5 past the hour you are on a commercial station with a wild and wacky zoo format. It doesn't make sense that it's the same person voicing both.

There were some quite silly pseudonyms back in the day - Jeff Stryker, Victoria Station, Amy Highway.....

Now the likes of Metro Networks and AA Roadwatch are no more, and a lot more stations do it in house as they are part of large groups, it's all a bit more sensible these days.

Sorry I think what I ment was why do they bother using any name, is it a requirement of the station that they sign off with a name even if it is not their name?

[borcy]

Or read out the names of the editor, producer etc why bother?

[48k]

Cotty said:

48k said:

Cotty said:

48k said:

It will be down to the house style of the station concerned.

They may not also use their real name - when I did travel news I had several made-up names depending on which station I was broadcasting on.

If you can just make up a name, whats the point?

There are myriad reasons TBH.

Branding / client contractual reasons is one example. If you are voicing bulletins for more than one station they may not want the same person on more than one station, or if you are pre-reccing then it avoids issues of "Person X" reading two different bulletins on different stations at the same time.

Another example is if you are doing travel news AND also presenting shows on a different station, you may want to keep your presenting persona separate from your travel news persona.

Another example is if you are voicing a BBC bulletin at 2 mins past the hour, whose house style is very BBC and straight laced, then at 5 past the hour you are on a commercial station with a wild and wacky zoo format. It doesn't make sense that it's the same person voicing both.

There were some quite silly pseudonyms back in the day - Jeff Stryker, Victoria Station, Amy Highway.....

Now the likes of Metro Networks and AA Roadwatch are no more, and a lot more stations do it in house as they are part of large groups, it's all a bit more sensible these days.

Sorry I think what I ment was why do they bother using any name, is it a requirement of the station that they sign off with a name even if it is not their name?

Yes see my first reply - it will be down to the house style of the station concerned. Also it's usually normal practice for journalists to identify themselves. See also - pretty much any TV news programme, BBC News 24, Sky News, breakfast tv etc.

[Cotty]

48k said:

Yes see my first reply - it will be down to the house style of the station concerned. Also it's usually normal practice for journalists to identify themselves. See also - pretty much any TV news programme, BBC News 24, Sky News, breakfast tv etc.

This goes back to my original point if they are using a false name they are not identify themselves, so whats the point.
Its as if the station is saying you have to identify yourself, but you can use any name so as to not to identify yourself. Makes no sense.

[Jordie Barretts sock]

I remember Atlantic 252 made it's presenters use pseudonyms, Sandy Shaw, Dusty Rhodes, etc. I'm sure some of them went on to be famous elsewhere.

[StevieBee]

hidetheelephants said:

StevieBee said:

(Behaviour Change Communications guru for the Waste Sector... worked with 150 Local Authorities in the UK and in 30 countries, mainly low-income, developing nations so fire away if you have any other questions on this one! )

Some plastics are regarded(or marked as) unrecyclable, convenience food packaging being the most visible to me, others perhaps so if contaminated; what's the hurdle stopping the various pyrolysis schemes being scaled up to deal with UK polymer waste domestically? Is it purely cost?

Pyrolysis is a brilliant process but has its limitations. Two, in fact.

The first is that its efficiency is dependant upon pre-sorting and segregation. Whereas a Material Recycling Facility has a contamination tolerance of 5% or maybe a little more, pyrolysis is pretty much zero. That means that the material has to be pre-sorted somewhere along the chain (either mechanically and manually or both) and this is expensive. You also need a very consistent stream of incoming material of high volume. Although there is a lot of material that's suitable for pyrolysis, it's not of sufficient volume and thus value to justify the investment.

The second is that pyrolysis supports what's called a linear economy - that is material enters the supply chain, is used, and exits the supply chain (as char (fertiliser) or liquid fuel). Recycling supports a Circular Economy, where a material enters the supply chain and stays there. Government policy the world over has or is moving towards Circular. The manifestation of this is policy that is seeing the use of non-recyclable material taper off. This means that the need for treatment technology like pyrolysis will lessen in the future.

Added to all this is that any non-recyclable material is used in Energy from Waste plants. Very little goes to landfill these days and what does isn't suitable for Pyrolysis.

There have been a couple of attempts to scale up Pyrolysis but all have failed spectacularly. Air Products at Tees Valley being the highest profile one but there are many others.

Pyrolysis still has it use but for small scale waste management operations like hospitals.

Edited by StevieBee on Tuesday 23 April 07:07

[StevieBee]

Cotty said:

48k said:

Yes see my first reply - it will be down to the house style of the station concerned. Also it's usually normal practice for journalists to identify themselves. See also - pretty much any TV news programme, BBC News 24, Sky News, breakfast tv etc.

This goes back to my original point if they are using a false name they are not identify themselves, so whats the point.
Its as if the station is saying you have to identify yourself, but you can use any name so as to not to identify yourself. Makes no sense.

I think it just comes down to embedded convention rather than for any legal or defined purpose.

I used to be the Chairman of a Community Radio station and once asked why there was a need to run a news bulletin on the hour every hour. My idea was to just run the news bulletin between each show. I was told we couldn't do that but the only reason given was because 'that's how it is and everyone else runs hourly bulletins'. It certainly wasn't an OfCom directive.

[psi310398]

Talking of recycling etc, is the Royal Mail explicitly exempted from the anti fly-tipping legislation that the rest of us are bound by?

I’ve just spent a quarter of an hour sorting out all the accumulated unsolicited (and untargeted) bumpf that our local postwoman dumps through the letter box on a regular basis. I’ve asked her to stop and only to deliver stuff actually addressed to us but, apparently, she has instructions to ignore such requests.

I don’t even mean the stuff addressed to the “Legal Occupier” from TV Licensing or Scottish Power or other organisations who can’t be bothered to research who they are dealing with or whether they do actually need to contact me. I mean fliers and other round robins. Quite clearly unsolicited and obviously likely to be unwelcome to the majority of recipients. Apart from being irritating, it’s also inexcusably wasteful of resources.

How does RM get away with this? If I regularly put litter through a neighbour’s letterbox, I’m fairly sure there’d be legal consequences.

And, yes, I have used the opt out for the direct marketing stuff but that doesn’t apply to this stuff apparently.

[HTP99]

psi310398 said:

Talking of recycling etc, is the Royal Mail explicitly exempted from the anti fly-tipping legislation that the rest of us are bound by?

I’ve just spent a quarter of an hour sorting out all the accumulated unsolicited (and untargeted) bumpf that our local postwoman dumps through the letter box on a regular basis. I’ve asked her to stop and only to deliver stuff actually addressed to us but, apparently, she has instructions to ignore such requests.

I don’t even mean the stuff addressed to the “Legal Occupier” from TV Licensing or Scottish Power or other organisations who can’t be bothered to research who they are dealing with or whether they do actually need to contact me. I mean fliers and other round robins. Quite clearly unsolicited and obviously likely to be unwelcome to the majority of recipients. Apart from being irritating, it’s also inexcusably wasteful of resources.

How does RM get away with this? If I regularly put litter through a neighbour’s letterbox, I’m fairly sure there’d be legal consequences.

And, yes, I have used the opt out for the direct marketing stuff but that doesn’t apply to this stuff apparently.

I'm amazed that companies still invest in these fliers, surely in this day and age they just don't work, anything glossy in the post just gets thrown straight into the recycling bin, I don't even look at it.

The car manufacturer I represent have similar ideas to post out glossy fliers detailing the latest car offer, they tell us it is happening, we have to pay towards it, we get absolutely nothing from it, come on its the 21st century, this sort of advertising doesn't work now!

[Alickadoo]

psi310398 said:

Talking of recycling etc, is the Royal Mail explicitly exempted from the anti fly-tipping legislation that the rest of us are bound by?

I’ve just spent a quarter of an hour sorting out all the accumulated unsolicited (and untargeted) bumpf that our local postwoman dumps through the letter box on a regular basis. I’ve asked her to stop and only to deliver stuff actually addressed to us but, apparently, she has instructions to ignore such requests.

I don’t even mean the stuff addressed to the “Legal Occupier” from TV Licensing or Scottish Power or other organisations who can’t be bothered to research who they are dealing with or whether they do actually need to contact me. I mean fliers and other round robins. Quite clearly unsolicited and obviously likely to be unwelcome to the majority of recipients. Apart from being irritating, it’s also inexcusably wasteful of resources.

How does RM get away with this? If I regularly put litter through a neighbour’s letterbox, I’m fairly sure there’d be legal consequences.

And, yes, I have used the opt out for the direct marketing stuff but that doesn’t apply to this stuff apparently.

Try not to worry about it.

Put the stuff you don't want in your bin.

Move on with your life.

Other cliches are available.

[48k]

Cotty said:

48k said:

Yes see my first reply - it will be down to the house style of the station concerned. Also it's usually normal practice for journalists to identify themselves. See also - pretty much any TV news programme, BBC News 24, Sky News, breakfast tv etc.

This goes back to my original point if they are using a false name they are not identify themselves, so whats the point.
Its as if the station is saying you have to identify yourself, but you can use any name so as to not to identify yourself. Makes no sense.

You're not reading my first reply or just not comprehending it.
A radio station might have a house style or policy that says "the format for our news bulletins is to begin by saying the time and your name. Keep the bulletin to three minutes, news first then sport, end with the sponsor jingle". So it begins, 'Ten o clock news this is Howard Hughes'.. " House style followed. There's no law or offcom regulation mandating it. It's what the radio station wants to do. Listeners like to put a name to the voice they are hearing. Radio is a friend, people like to know their friends name. It doesn't actually matter in the grand scheme of things if that's actually the name on the persons birth certificate, its a name associated to a voice associated to that brand.

[StevieBee]

psi310398 said:

Talking of recycling etc, is the Royal Mail explicitly exempted from the anti fly-tipping legislation that the rest of us are bound by?

I’ve just spent a quarter of an hour sorting out all the accumulated unsolicited (and untargeted) bumpf that our local postwoman dumps through the letter box on a regular basis. I’ve asked her to stop and only to deliver stuff actually addressed to us but, apparently, she has instructions to ignore such requests.

I don’t even mean the stuff addressed to the “Legal Occupier” from TV Licensing or Scottish Power or other organisations who can’t be bothered to research who they are dealing with or whether they do actually need to contact me. I mean fliers and other round robins. Quite clearly unsolicited and obviously likely to be unwelcome to the majority of recipients. Apart from being irritating, it’s also inexcusably wasteful of resources.

How does RM get away with this? If I regularly put litter through a neighbour’s letterbox, I’m fairly sure there’d be legal consequences.

And, yes, I have used the opt out for the direct marketing stuff but that doesn’t apply to this stuff apparently.

I get what you're saying but it's not fly-tipping. The Royal Mail are delivering items to its intended destination. Whether you appreciate or want what they deliver is of no concern to them. They are doing what someone has paid them to do.

HTP99 said:

I'm amazed that companies still invest in these fliers, surely in this day and age they just don't work, anything glossy in the post just gets thrown straight into the recycling bin, I don't even look at it.

The car manufacturer I represent have similar ideas to post out glossy fliers detailing the latest car offer, they tell us it is happening, we have to pay towards it, we get absolutely nothing from it, come on its the 21st century, this sort of advertising doesn't work now!

You'd be surprised at how effective it can be. In some cases, print-based marketing is become more effective than digital marketing for the simple reason that it's not digital.

The response rate for it to be viable is small. I used work in Direct Marketing (for Barnardo's) in the 90s and a 2% response rate on mailing would be considered a roaring success.

[CambsBill]

StevieBee said:

hidetheelephants said:

A related question; when a book is described as 'pulped', because of legal action or a massive editorial/typesetting goof etc, do they actually pulp them or is it just sent for landfill?

Yes.

The paper is mulched and pulped with a proportion of virgin material added (around 25%) to make new paper or paper based products.

Very little goes to landfill these days. If it can't be recycled, it's generally used to make electricity by burning it.

And then gets used for purposes you might not expect, such as building the M6 toll road

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3...

[48k]

psi310398 said:

Talking of recycling etc, is the Royal Mail explicitly exempted from the anti fly-tipping legislation that the rest of us are bound by?

I’ve just spent a quarter of an hour sorting out all the accumulated unsolicited (and untargeted) bumpf that our local postwoman dumps through the letter box on a regular basis. I’ve asked her to stop and only to deliver stuff actually addressed to us but, apparently, she has instructions to ignore such requests.

It's not fly tipping stop being melodramatic. The companies have a contract with Royal Mail to have their advertising delivered. The postie has to deliver it. Just put it in the recycling if it's of no interest. Mrs 48k is a postie she hates sorting them and delivering them as much as you hate receiving them but it's her job and she's not allowed to decide to put them in the bin for you.

[psi310398]

StevieBee said:

psi310398 said:

Talking of recycling etc, is the Royal Mail explicitly exempted from the anti fly-tipping legislation that the rest of us are bound by?

I’ve just spent a quarter of an hour sorting out all the accumulated unsolicited (and untargeted) bumpf that our local postwoman dumps through the letter box on a regular basis. I’ve asked her to stop and only to deliver stuff actually addressed to us but, apparently, she has instructions to ignore such requests.

I don’t even mean the stuff addressed to the “Legal Occupier” from TV Licensing or Scottish Power or other organisations who can’t be bothered to research who they are dealing with or whether they do actually need to contact me. I mean fliers and other round robins. Quite clearly unsolicited and obviously likely to be unwelcome to the majority of recipients. Apart from being irritating, it’s also inexcusably wasteful of resources.

How does RM get away with this? If I regularly put litter through a neighbour’s letterbox, I’m fairly sure there’d be legal consequences.

And, yes, I have used the opt out for the direct marketing stuff but that doesn’t apply to this stuff apparently.

I get what you're saying but it's not fly-tipping. The Royal Mail are delivering items to its intended destination. Whether you appreciate or want what they deliver is of no concern to them. They are doing what someone has paid them to do.

I was explicitly excluding stuff which posted through the system. I’m meaning the armfuls of unaddressed bumpf which AIUI does not constitute post that the RM has a legal obligation to deliver.

This is unaddressed and untargeted stuff that they solicit because it gets them an income but it is not from what I can understand a statutory service.

I’m not particularly stressed about it, but just curious if and why they think it is a service to the recipient.

I also wonder what would happen if I saved up a sackful of this stuff and dumped it on the counter at the sorting office on the equally doubtful basis that RM might be interested in the messages.