burning vs no cooking

[wrongway_08]

Still at Uncle Johnny's. We need a little input from you all,

- A trash burning hiker is stating that since he doesn't use fuel to cook his meals (meals that normally need cooking - oatmeal and such), that the fuel savings benifits make up for the inviromental impact that burning his trash causes.

What do you all think?

[Lilred]

I think that not all trash burns completely. I'm willing to bet this guy leaves a lot of half burned trash in the fire ring. I'm betting that other hikers are inconvenienced by having to haul off his half burnt trash.

I'll sometimes, on the rare occasion, burn trash in a fire, but I make sure it burns completely and anything that doesn't, I haul out. I doubt it makes any kind of impact on the environment other than the trash left behind.

Hope you're having a great hike.

[wrongway_08]

Thanks Lilred, good to hear from you.

- Lets say the trash is burned completely - nothing left in the pit.

- does the fuel he saves by not cooking because he just uses cold water in his meals make uup for him burning his trash?

[Wags]

unless he's burning plastic or rubber, what does burning his trash do negatively towards the environment?

[JAK]

Still at Uncle Johnny's. We need a little input from you all,

- A trash burning hiker is stating that since he doesn't use fuel to cook his meals (meals that normally need cooking - oatmeal and such), that the fuel savings benifits make up for the inviromental impact that burning his trash causes.

What do you all think?I am not sure what all the fuss is about burning trash. Depends on the trash. I am cutting down on plastics as much as possible especially when I hike, but I don't see the problem in using a paper Tim Horton's cup as tinder for my Kelly Kettle, once it gets too trashed to use as a cup.

The proper thing to do is to avoid buying plastic in the first place.

[aaroniguana]

It's really kind of apples and oranges isn't it? It's like saying I don't burn coal to heat my home so it's ok for me to dump waste oil into the water table.

[fiddlehead]

Burnin trash is better than throwing it in the woods.
But carrying it out is better.

Cooking with it? not a bad idea although i doubt he's going to cook much oatmeal from the trash that i know i generate on the trail. (not much) You'd be lucky to get a fire started from my paper/cardboard.

I say live and let live. Hope you both have a good hike.

[SGT Rock]

I say he is fine burning it. A bottle weighs about 1 ounce. Compare that to burning about one ounce of a petroleum based fuel such as gas or butane and no one seems to mind folks doing that. It seems odd that people would love their canister stoves then get bent out of shape if someone burns a zip-lock.

Just add to that, I recently read somewhere that plastics are part of what is clogging up land fills. Lets face it, most of what you carry out ain't going to get recycled. If you carry it out, it still actually ends up in the environment. Carrying it out doesn't reduce its impact on the environment it only makes the person carrying it out feel better because they leave someone else to do the dirty work for them. As JAK said, the best thing to do is find a way not to carry plastic in the first place.

IMO there are better things to worry about than if someone burns their trash.

[Flush2wice]

I cook and burn trash. But I try not to eat foods that give me gas. So it evens out.

[JAK]

I cook and burn trash. But I try not to eat foods that give me gas. So it evens out.On the other hand, if you could run a small turbine off all that methane to recharge your batteries...

[jesse]

using a stove to cook = insignificance environmental impact.

completely burning trash = insignificance environmental impact.

leaving trash/plastic/foil unburned in fire ring = little environmental impact, just bad outdoor manners.

[wrongway_08]

We are just debating, nothing more then that :). All is good!

Hope you are all getting a chance to get your boots dirty!

Just goofing around at Uncle Johnny's now, plan on returning to the hike Sunday - of course I said the same thing yesterday :)!

[JAK]

OK. Just got a funny question in my head.

1. When you get gas, from eating beans or whatever,
does that indicate you aren't getting the full calories per gram?

2. Is the methane generated from bean enough to cook the next batch?

[Camping Dave]

Throwing paper into an existing fire, no big deal.

Burning plastic, bad idea. For one thing it stinks. If you do it at a shelter it's flat out rude, kind of like blowing cigarette smoke onto other hikers. Second, it's dangerous. Burning plastic produces complex hydrocarbons that are toxic to humans and animals. This is not the same as burning alcohol, or butane in a specially designed stove; these produce water and carbon dioxide. I'm actually kind of surprised that the consensus here seems to be that burning plastic is ok.

[SGT Rock]

So don't breath the smoke.

[jesse]

...the consensus here seems to be that burning plastic is ok.

I in no way think its ok. LNT. I just said it had little environmental impact. Its not going to cause global warming, wreck the eco system...

[Lone Wolf]

fire rings are for burning wood only. that's why i build my own sometimes

[mudhead]

http://www.gov.pe.ca/infopei/index.php3?number=60944

If your fire is hot enough to burn a beer can, it will probably burn plastic ok.

Which is worse, furan or dioxin?

[Flush2wice]

I in no way think its ok. LNT. I just said it had little environmental impact. Its not going to cause global warming, wreck the eco system...
Let's be real... Driving to a trail head causes more ecological damage than hiking for a week and burning some snickers wrappers. LNT is really about not littering so that the next hiker doesn't have to see your litter. LNT has nothing to do with the eco system. If your worried about the eco system, then trail hikers should be the least of your concerns. You do more ecological harm by mowing your yard than a thru-hiker does in 6 months.

[jesse]

Let's be real... Driving to a trail head causes more ecological damage than hiking for a week and burning some snickers wrappers. LNT is really about not littering so that the next hiker doesn't have to see your litter. LNT has nothing to do with the eco system. If your worried about the eco system, then trail hikers should be the least of your concerns. You do more ecological harm by mowing your yard than a thru-hiker does in 6 months.

I agree. But this thread is not about LNT, its about environmental impact.

[SGT Rock]

I figure a few ounces of trash makes less enviromental impact if burned than a gallon of gas. The enviromental impact of 6.something pounds of gas for a shuttle or a hitch is less than a couple of wrappers in a fire. There is probably more enviromental impact from my refried bean gas.

[Wags]

this 'lesser of 2 evils' topic has me thinking about the upcoming election

[SGT Rock]

Well I think it is not necissarily the lesser of two evils, more like complaining about your neighbor's moped while everyone else around you has a Harley.

[Camping Dave]

Actually more like draining your Harley's oil onto the ground, then claiming that riding your bicycle makes up for the environmental damage. Burning plastic in the outdoors is a bad idea and a dirty habit. Everybody should strive to be clean in their outdoor manners.

[Flush2wice]

I buy Snickers wrapper offsets before each trip, so I'm good to go.

[GGS2]

Burning ANYTHING in an open fire is going to emit partially pyrolyzed and unburned parts of whatever the solid fuel is, including wood as well as plastics. It is well understood that open cooking fires where they are common, in places like Nepal and India, for example, are a major ecological and epidemiological negative influence. The same can be said of open garbage fires here. So this is the basis of most advice and prohibitions concerning the burning of wastes and plastics in open fires. However, I cannot get too concerned over the burning of small amounts of polyethylene and non-halogenated plastics in a camp fire, provided the combustion is relatively complete. The problem is that plastic generally melts before evaporating, which means it may pool in the ash, leaving lumps of mixed ash, carbon and plastic. If you are burning plastic, make sure it rests on some wood or cardboard which will catch the drips and burn them completely. Don't burn saran, teflon, vinyl, PVC or other chloro- or fluoro- plastics, because they emit poisonous fumes, Such materials should be disposed of by complete combustion or (shudder) landfill.

The remaining issue is the carbon burden of such burning in any circumstance. We use far too much fuel and plastic, and we should reduce the amount we consume both on the trail and at home. That's my two cents.

[weary]

Still at Uncle Johnny's. We need a little input from you all,

- A trash burning hiker is stating that since he doesn't use fuel to cook his meals (meals that normally need cooking - oatmeal and such), that the fuel savings benifits make up for the inviromental impact that burning his trash causes.

What do you all think?
He's talking nonsense. Burning wood merely hastens the decay that happens to all wood eventually. But plastic emits dangerous pollutants. It should only be burned in an incinerator, with devices that capture the worst of the pollutants.

Having said this, careful readers will know that I've burned a lot of plastic. But it's only plastic that others have brought in an left, like the half burned stuff in fireplaces.

It's not an ideal solution. But my back only carries so much. I carry out all my trash. I sometimes burn others trash.

WEary

[SGT Rock]

Actually more like draining your Harley's oil onto the ground, then claiming that riding your bicycle makes up for the environmental damage. Burning plastic in the outdoors is a bad idea and a dirty habit. Everybody should strive to be clean in their outdoor manners.
I disagree. The amount is fairly negligable compared to your analogy. It would be more like someone spilling a little oil when chainging their lawnmower oil and getting crap about it from the guys with the SUV and Harleys leaking oil all over the place about his bad habit of using a gas lawnmower.

Anyone with that much time to wory about such a negligable discharge is missing the big picture.

[Appalachian Tater]

A trash burning hiker is stating that since he doesn't use fuel to cook his meals (meals that normally need cooking - oatmeal and such), that the fuel savings benifits make up for the inviromental impact that burning his trash causes.

What do you all think?

As these sorts of issues come under discussion, it has become apparent that they aren't simple equations. For instance, it is generally better for the environment for someone in the UK to eat lamb from New Zealand rather than locally-raised lamb, despite the transport impact, because raising sheep in the UK requires a good deal of petroleum-based fertilizer to produce what the sheep eats whereas in New Zealand it doesn't.

Or take all of the sea birds that starve to death when they fill up with bits of plastic until they have no room left for food. I would argue they would have been better off if the plastic had been burned. Like this one: http://www.bestlifeonline.com/cms/uploads/1/dead_bird.jpg

Or if you destroy forests to plant corn to replace oil, you have a net environmental loss, by far.

So it would depend on what they're burning and what they're eating and how much fuel they're not using. Things are not as simple as they seem.

In the end, it would be really hard to say, even for a scientist.

[JAK]

Even harder for a scientist, I would say.

[SGT Rock]

Great points made by Tater and JAK. So in the end, I think this is one of those issues where people have to decide what is best for themselves and not worry about judging people for their choices. It reminds me of the "Paper or Plastic" issue. Both sides of that had logical arguments why their product was best.

In the end, if a person burns a couple of Snickers wrappers in a fire the overall impact in proportion to all other choices one has to make is so negligible it isn't worth giving someone a hard time over.

[Bob S]

This really seems like a non issue to me.

Burn all you want, if there is a residue of burnt or un-burnt plastic, pack it out.







That way it helps fill up the landfill…

[Tinker]

This really seems like a non issue to me.

Burn all you want, if there is a residue of burnt or un-burnt plastic, pack it out.







That way it helps fill up the landfill…

My sentiments exactly. Lots of people have seen me throw wrappers into a fire and fish the unburnables out the next morning. I wouldn't throw anything in there that stinks or contains high amounts of plastics for the sakes of others near the fire, but a little plastic on the instant oatmeal packet (or foil) is easily picked out and packed out the next day.

BTW

Rick - have a good hike. The new pic is a winner.

[Flush2wice]

In the end, if a person burns a couple of Snickers wrappers in a fire the overall impact in proportion to all other choices one has to make is so negligible it isn't worth giving someone a hard time over.
I agree. When I drive my Tahoe to Wal-Mart, I choose paper over plastic because I can burn it without worrying about pollution.
{insert smiley}

[mkmangold]

"What if there were no hypothetical constructs?"
"Don't you just hate rhetorical questions?"
What if I built a car that ran off of plastic? Would it be ok since I am saving all those pollutants from reaching the wastestream?
Did you know I invented the phrase "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" but was naive enough not to copyright it?

[NICKTHEGREEK]

Actually more like draining your Harley's oil onto the ground, then claiming that riding your bicycle makes up for the environmental damage. Burning plastic in the outdoors is a bad idea and a dirty habit. Everybody should strive to be clean in their outdoor manners.
Mine leaked out all on it's own. No puddle under the old flattie, time to add a quart.

[Fiddleback]

'It's just one candy wrapper dropped'...'it's only one dump left on the trail'...'it'll bio-degrade'... An individual's environmental impact may, or may not, be significant. But in aggregate, the hurt adds up. As for trash burning,...

Trash burning, specifically backyard barrel burning, accounts for an estimated 57% of the dioxin (and furan) emissions in the U.S.. Amazingly, the 'all other sources' include large environmental nasties such as; residential and industrial wood burning, utilities, smelting, cement kilns, sewage sludge incineration, municipal/medical/hazardous waste incineration, paper industry, vehicles, and cigarette smoke (EPA estimates for 2000-2004).

Burning trash is the same concept as dumping sewage in a river or venting coal-plant exaust up a tall smoke stack...it moves the pollution downstream away from the polluter and on to someone else. But in the case of trash burning, it also converts some inactive ingredients into toxics. Environmentally, it's not a good thing...and illegal in some states including mine.

'But, I only burned a little...it's not significant.' Except when there's unintended consequences...

FB

[SGT Rock]

Except the same argument could be made for the filling up of landfills with plastics.

People are more comfortable with absolutes - so to feel it is absolutely bad to burn any plastic is a comfortable position to rest on. But the truth is the issue is much more complex.

So again, getting bent out of shape over someone else doing it is not worth the effort. Make the decision for yourself and be happy.

[jesse]

This really seems like a non issue to me.

Burn all you want, if there is a residue of burnt or un-burnt plastic, pack it out.
…

Only problem with that is some of it is not going to get carried out. Its mid March in GA, there are 30 hikers around the fire. If one throws their olive oil pack they stole from chic-fi- lay, they all throw their olive oil packs in. Not everyone is going to pack their olive oil pack out the next morning.

I can prove this point, by the mere fact, that I have never seen a fire ring that did not have trash in it.

Do not burn anything that will not get fully consumed. Never burn plastic, or foil.

[weary]

As these sorts of issues come under discussion, it has become apparent that they aren't simple equations. For instance, it is generally better for the environment for someone in the UK to eat lamb from New Zealand rather than locally-raised lamb, despite the transport impact, because raising sheep in the UK requires a good deal of petroleum-based fertilizer to produce what the sheep eats whereas in New Zealand it doesn't.

Or take all of the sea birds that starve to death when they fill up with bits of plastic until they have no room left for food. I would argue they would have been better off if the plastic had been burned. Like this one: http://www.bestlifeonline.com/cms/uploads/1/dead_bird.jpg

Or if you destroy forests to plant corn to replace oil, you have a net environmental loss, by far.

So it would depend on what they're burning and what they're eating and how much fuel they're not using. Things are not as simple as they seem.

In the end, it would be really hard to say, even for a scientist.
Sure. But the basic rule is simple. If you can carry it in, you can carry it out. And should.

That way there are no need for subtle calculations.

And Sgt. Rock. Litter is the least environmentally harmful pollution. Paper, tin cans, even plastic will eventually decay and become invisible. Far worse is the pollution from the gas we burn getting to the trail, or the coal-generated electricity we would burn by staying home. But that is not an excuse for littering.

Weary

[Appalachian Tater]

Even harder for a scientist, I would say.

Yes, yes, in answering the question I missed the whole point.


Sure. But the basic rule is simple. If you can carry it in, you can carry it out. And should.

That way there are no need for subtle calculations.

And that's the whole point.

[paradoxb3]

it seems like what everyone is saying is, from the point that a snickers wrapper or plastic bottle is manufactured, the environmental impact has already been "scheduled" to happen. The only question after that is where it will occur. In a landfill? In an incinerator? In a fire ring?

I would then ask the question, where would you rather it happen? Personally, something like a oatmeal cream pie or candy bar wrapper in a raging fire is acceptable. It's gone almost immediately. Burning a plastic bottle in the ring where it will melt and stink for hours where people are trying to sleep is unacceptable. Some of you may still disagree with me. Thats fine. Just dont burn any bottles near my hammock, k? It's just good ethics and trail courtesy.

With all that being said, as little trash (weight) as I generate hiking for a week, i dont see why this is even an issue. You can throw it away in town, and after all, you carried the pouches, containers, wrappers, etc... into the woods to begin with, so its not anything added to your burden.

[Appalachian Tater]

Personally, something like a oatmeal cream pie or candy bar wrapper in a raging fire is acceptable. It's gone almost immediately. Burning a plastic bottle in the ring where it will melt and stink for hours where people are trying to sleep is unacceptable. Some of you may still disagree with me. Thats fine. Just dont burn any bottles near my hammock, k? It's just good ethics and trail courtesy.

Sorry, it's a slippery slope. You can't tell me not to burn my bottle if you burn your wrapper. The fire pits have to be cleared of the debris by the maintainers. You're supposed to pack out all of your food packaging.

[Whitey9457]

At the same time you could be saying "well i'm hiking, so i'm technically not using the gas from a car...and therefore I can pollute however i want" and it goes on and on.

You could pollute in many ways, but because you're not polluting one way doesn't give you a right to pollute in another (i'm not opposed to cooking obviously but i am a little bit opposed to burning your trash because obviously some things shouldn't be burned which inevitably are by some people). So really both aren't that bad for the environment, but that argument is really bad and doesn't give justification to pollute.

[Bob S]

People are going to burn trash, it’s going to happen no mater what any of you say. It’s going to happen no mater what the government says.

There is absolutely nothing you can do or say to stop it.

So stop ranting about no fires & trash burning, and try to turn the focus to what you do with the un-burnt residue. Where you have a chance to change the outcome from trash residue on the trail to convincing people that they should pack it out. Even this is a tough sell, but it has a better chance of happening then stopping trash burning does.

[weary]

People are going to burn trash, it’s going to happen no mater what any of you say. It’s going to happen no mater what the government says.

There is absolutely nothing you can do or say to stop it.

So stop ranting about no fires & trash burning, and try to turn the focus to what you do with the un-burnt residue. Where you have a chance to change the outcome from trash residue on the trail to convincing people that they should pack it out. Even this is a tough sell, but it has a better chance of happening then stopping trash burning does.
I remember, BS, when the same argument was made for having a can dump next to every fire ring. People told me, "what do you expect us to do with our trash. The nearest dump is 100 miles away."

But we kept talking and arguing and urging and pretty soon the can dumps mostly disappeared. That experience convinces me that sometimes there abolutely are things we can do to stop irresponsible behavior.

Weary

[Whitey9457]

I agree, its funny when someone says that "people are going to burn trash..no matter what" because all that really translates into is "i'm going to burn my trash no matter what". It is def. possible to backpack and hike out all your trash. Pack out what you pack in is def. one of the fundamentals of LNT which should be practiced to the greatest extent possible by everyone. I don't think its OK to just dismiss it and say "let's forget about that principle". Maybe its true that it will still give off the same amount amount of pollution when its burnt or landfilled but when enjoying the back country, hikers should be held to a higher standard, just because of its rarity and what people go to use it for.

[SGT Rock]

Sure. But the basic rule is simple. If you can carry it in, you can carry it out. And should.

That way there are no need for subtle calculations.

And Sgt. Rock. Litter is the least environmentally harmful pollution. Paper, tin cans, even plastic will eventually decay and become invisible. Far worse is the pollution from the gas we burn getting to the trail, or the coal-generated electricity we would burn by staying home. But that is not an excuse for littering.

Weary
Actually Weary you are still living in the belief of an absolute best and have decided that any release of a toxin, no matter what the amount - is worse than what can happen to those plastics than any other result. The reality is that things are not so simple. Carrying out trash does not mean it will get recycled, or go into the ground, or whatever. Plastics are a huge problem as they don't just break down.

I figure a good conservationist like you might know about this problem, but here is a grand example of where not burning plastics can be a bad thing:
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Ocean/Trashing-Oceans-Plastic4nov02.htm

So, I know you are human and love an absolute, and for you that absolute is burning is bad. But as I stated, it ain't that simple. And beating others up about it or starting the name calling is not only a poor way to start debating it, it is an absolutely unreasonable position.

[SGT Rock]

I agree, its funny when someone says that "people are going to burn trash..no matter what" because all that really translates into is "i'm going to burn my trash no matter what". It is def. possible to backpack and hike out all your trash. Pack out what you pack in is def. one of the fundamentals of LNT which should be practiced to the greatest extent possible by everyone. I don't think its OK to just dismiss it and say "let's forget about that principle". Maybe its true that it will still give off the same amount amount of pollution when its burnt or landfilled but when enjoying the back country, hikers should be held to a higher standard, just because of its rarity and what people go to use it for.
It is a standard for those who actually belive it is. Otherwise it is a principle that others try to push. There is a difference.

[SGT Rock]

Here is another article about the Pacific Plastic patch:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/great-pacific-garbage-patch.htm


The main problem with plastic -- besides there being so much of it -- is that it doesn't biodegrade. No natural process can break it down. (Experts point out that the durability that makes plastic so useful to humans also makes it quite harmful to nature.) Instead, plastic photodegrades. A plastic cigarette (http://healthguide.howstuffworks.com/smoking-in-depth.htm) lighter cast out to sea will fragment into smaller and smaller pieces of plastic without breaking into simpler compounds, which scientists estimate could take hundreds of years. The small bits of plastic produced by photodegradation are called mermaid tears or nurdles

Nurdles also have the insidious property of soaking up toxic chemicals. Over time, even chemicals or poisons that are widely diffused in water can become highly concentrated as they're mopped up by nurdles. These poison-filled masses threaten the entire food (http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/food.htm) chain, especially when eaten by filter feeders that are then consumed by large creatures

Now as a non-scientist I read that to mean that a plastic that breaks down (wither in a land fill or the ocean) is toxic and collects other toxins as it filters through the water table. I reckon that ocean or underground, it is all the same. So by not burning you are only advocating poluting the water instead of air.

But then again, humans prefer absolutes and for now the favorite absolute is to not burn.

[Appalachian Tater]

here is a grand example of where not burning plastics can be a bad thing:
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Ocean/Trashing-Oceans-Plastic4nov02.htm


That page has another photo of a bird skeleton filled with plastic. This problem really upsets me. A couple of weeks ago I saw a seagull with a hypodermic needle sticking out of its chest. It is criminal what we have done to this planet and the other living beings on it. Humans have too little respect for our home.

[Fiddleback]

But plastics can be recycled. In fact the carpet under my feet as I type this is made from recycled soda bottles. So, too, is the decking outside the door.

Proper disposal of trash has many levels. Recycling might be the best way, state-of-the-art land fills (which are built to contain, not leak, toxics) may be the next best way. Outdoor burning is recognized as one of the environmentally worse...and, as I posted above, illegal in many areas.

I don't understand why a full container/wrapper can be carried in but the empty container cannot be carried out.

All it takes is self-discipline and an active, on-going concern to do what is right.

FB

[SGT Rock]

Plastics can be recycled, but for the most part are not. And I dare say that most trash cans you see on the side of the trail (except for maybe MAYBE in the national parks) will just have their trash going to a landfill. That said, I doubt that the fumes of a snicker wrapper burning is going to kill anyone or anything or get anyone a fine.

[theinfamousj]

Aside from the "too lazy to pack out what they packed in" argument, has anyone considered another reason to burn that Snicker's wrapper?

As a chemist, I submit that it colors the fire in interesting ways. However, I'm more likely to bring salt, antacid, damp-rid, and other safer chemicals when I go on (usually car-)camping trips to provide this same entertainment.

Different ions, when exposed to a hot enough flame, will produce different colors. MSG is a really fun one to watch. It entertains the kiddies.

'Course I figure that the burner in question wasn't doing it as part of some backwoods chemistry lesson. But that's been the only motivation behind the two times I've burned a candy wrapper.

As for burning HDPE or LDPE ... peeyew.

Oh, and as for recycling (and by this I mean returning plastics to their individual ingredients), it requires some nasty chemicals to undo the polymerization process that produced the plastic. This is why most plastics are re-used/repurposed into other things through mechanical break down (melting, shredding, etc.) instead. Or - and this is only a rumor that I've heard - are sold to third world countries to burn in place of fuel oil.

Don't get me started on the nasty chemicals needed to recycle paper. Just compost paper. Truly. You'll do the Earth more service if you compost it than if you recycle it.

[Fiddleback]

I just spent the better part of the last hour tracking down the regs of the Appalachian Trail states (you're welcome :D)

Trash burning is severely restricted in New York and Pennsylvania; in all the other AT states outdoor burning of trash is illegal. A couple regs even specifically mention camp fires.

URL references and small gists for most of 'em available thru a PM to me.

FB

[weary]

Actually Weary you are still living in the belief of an absolute best and have decided that any release of a toxin, no matter what the amount - is worse than what can happen to those plastics than any other result. The reality is that things are not so simple. Carrying out trash does not mean it will get recycled, or go into the ground, or whatever. Plastics are a huge problem as they don't just break down.

I figure a good conservationist like you might know about this problem, but here is a grand example of where not burning plastics can be a bad thing:
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Ocean/Trashing-Oceans-Plastic4nov02.htm

So, I know you are human and love an absolute, and for you that absolute is burning is bad. But as I stated, it ain't that simple. And beating others up about it or starting the name calling is not only a poor way to start debating it, it is an absolutely unreasonable position.
Sarge. I don't beat anyone. But I have dealt with these issues on a daily basis for 40 years. Open burning dumps have been illegal for a couple of decades. Not many remain. But burning in a waste incinerator, is less polluting than burning in a shelter fire place, 99 times out of a hundred.

Anything is better than throwing the plastic in the ocean. But no responsible person has been doing that for a long time. Yeah, I know. There are a lot of irresponsible people -- including most of those that half burn plastics in a shelter fire ring.

Weary

[SGT Rock]

I just spent the better part of the last hour tracking down the regs of the Appalachian Trail states (you're welcome :D)

Trash burning is severely restricted in New York and Pennsylvania; in all the other AT states outdoor burning of trash is illegal. A couple regs even specifically mention camp fires.

URL references and small gists for most of 'em available thru a PM to me.

FB
I doubt even my local guys would consider sticking a snicker wrapper trash burning. I think you are reaching here.


Sarge. I don't beat anyone. But I have dealt with these issues on a daily basis for 40 years. Open burning dumps have been illegal for a couple of decades. Not many remain. But burning in a waste incinerator, is less polluting than burning in a shelter fire place, 99 times out of a hundred.

Anything is better than throwing the plastic in the ocean. But no responsible person has been doing that for a long time. Yeah, I know. There are a lot of irresponsible people -- including most of those that half burn plastics in a shelter fire ring.

Weary
Actually a lot of what ends up in the ocean and other bodies of water didn't get dumped there. This thing called rainwater washing stuff from the ground downstream. Erosion has even been known to affect, dare I say, landfills.

The chemists and the scientists here say it is a hard call to make, but the Absolutists know. Does that tell you something?

Again, people make a decision. Second guessing them or giving them crap about it in the back country is pointless. But then again, some people like being like that.

[Whitey9457]

When you create a fire in the forest you're doing a somewhat corresponding good though. Fires would've happened naturally if highways etc. weren't built and if we didn't put them out and its healthy to burn up the junk lying on the ground in the woods so new stuff can grow there. When you start burning plastic there's really no corresponding good except that now people are gonna be going around with dirty fire pits and I don't wanna cook food where there's melted plastic and stuff in the ring. When you build a campfire it leave ash which would be a fertilizer when you burn plastic it doesn't fully burn normally and i bet the remnants are somewhat toxic. I guess a snickers wrapper really isn't a big deal in that respect but its still a slippery slope in my opinion and the trail and the back country in general deserves better than that.

[GGS2]

As for burning HDPE or LDPE ... peeyew.

Oh, and as for recycling (and by this I mean returning plastics to their individual ingredients), it requires some nasty chemicals to undo the polymerization process that produced the plastic. This is why most plastics are re-used/repurposed into other things through mechanical break down (melting, shredding, etc.) instead. Or - and this is only a rumor that I've heard - are sold to third world countries to burn in place of fuel oil.

Don't get me started on the nasty chemicals needed to recycle paper. Just compost paper. Truly. You'll do the Earth more service if you compost it than if you recycle it.

And you, the chemist, are probably complicit in making all this stuff in the first place. :eek: :D But seriously... None of this would matter much if we were only about 1% of our present numbers. Right? Actually, even if we were that few, we would still have junk circulating in the Pacific gyres, and all the other persistent chemical and plastic problems, just somewhat diminished. However, if plastics were burned instead of dispersed, we would probably be much better off, simply because the compounds would have been degraded to the point that they could be gradually assimilated.

As it is, with our present numbers, we are simply swamping all the channels with undegradable junk. Burn, and we get too much ... peeyew. Recycle and we get all sorts of processing problems. Landfill or simply litter and an unacceptable fraction will end up as dispersed plastic detritus or water table pollution, dispersed methane and the like. There is no right solution to the downstream problems. The answer is to slow down the whole stream: make less un-biodegradable material of all types, and burn less fuel of all kinds. Ultimately, use less energy and use less resources of all kinds.

Are you ready for that?

[Appalachian Tater]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMSMViyCVNI&feature=related

[weary]

I doubt even my local guys would consider sticking a snicker wrapper trash burning. I think you are reaching here.


Actually a lot of what ends up in the ocean and other bodies of water didn't get dumped there. This thing called rainwater washing stuff from the ground downstream. Erosion has even been known to affect, dare I say, landfills.

The chemists and the scientists here say it is a hard call to make, but the Absolutists know. Does that tell you something?

Again, people make a decision. Second guessing them or giving them crap about it in the back country is pointless. But then again, some people like being like that.
A modern, engineered land fill does not erode. Unless it was very carefully built, it sometimes leaches chemicals into the ground water, but much less than they did a decade or so ago.

Maine has probably the most stringent recycling and landfill construction rules of any state. So when you get here, Sarge, you can safely carry out any wastes you generate. They will be carefully and safely disposed of properly.

I've hired a guy to haul my wastes to what was then an open, burning dump, but which is now a transfer station, to a properly constructed land fill, every two weeks for the past 45 years.

But now my town has a massive recycling system. cans, bottles, paper, bulk mail, plastics of all kinds now go into containers scattered around town. It goes to a commercial outfit that separates everything into the saleable products. Vegetable stuff has always gone to my compost pile.

My dilemma. If he sells his business, I'll just stop using the business. But it's a one person outfit. The owner is even older than I am. I can't bring myself to fire him. So I find myself struggling every two weeks to find enough non recyclable wastes.

I've told him he would have more customers if he stopped transporting to the transfer station and just picked up recyclables. But he won't change. You know how stubborn old people can be.

Weary

[SGT Rock]

Well Weary I do carry out my wastes, almost never burn anything out in the camp, but my point still remains that this is a decision that people have to make for themselves and creating a hassle for people that burn the occasional wrapper is not only an unnecessary waste of time and brain cells, there is a good chance they may actually be doing a good thing.

IMO there are more important things to worry about than if the guy I camp with burns some wrappers. Like does he carry out the aluminum foil from the campfire afterwards. Or does he pay for services in hostels, or many many other things.

[weary]

Well Weary I do carry out my wastes, almost never burn anything out in the camp, but my point still remains that this is a decision that people have to make for themselves and creating a hassle for people that burn the occasional wrapper is not only an unnecessary waste of time and brain cells, there is a good chance they may actually be doing a good thing.

IMO there are more important things to worry about than if the guy I camp with burns some wrappers. Like does he carry out the aluminum foil from the campfire afterwards. Or does he pay for services in hostels, or many many other things.
Certainly burning an occasional candy wrapper is harmless. But someone asked a question on White Blaze about burning trash on the trail, and I've answered it based on 60 plus years of hiking, camping, trail maintenance, and backpacking. It's increasingly rare to find a fire on the trail hot enough to burn more than an occasional piece of scrap paper.

I used to build real fires. Fires hot enough to burn aluminum beer cans, and melt beer bottles. That's rare these days. Few campsites have a decent supply of wood. Few hikers bother to even attempt such a fire. If they did I'd object to that also.

Rather today, if they build any fire, they ignite a few wet twigs to a smouldering smudge and attempt to burn the freezer bags they used to avoid having to wash a pot. And seeing them, every other hiker within sight does the same. The result is a fire place full of melted and half burned plastic and paper, that other hikers, seeing the mess, will use as a trash bin on the theory if it has some waste, a little more won't hurt.

Weary

[paradoxb3]

Sorry, it's a slippery slope. You can't tell me not to burn my bottle if you burn your wrapper. The fire pits have to be cleared of the debris by the maintainers. You're supposed to pack out all of your food packaging.

my point was not about environmental impact, it was about being courteous to others. and since we're such big fans of analogies, its like saying because the neighbors give their kid a pack of pop rocks to throw on the driveway, that means its ok for you to sit outside and fire a shotgun all night while they sleep. "well if its ok for them to make a little noise, i'm allowed to make as much noise as i want at any time i choose" one harmless act doesnt give you the right to be a nuisance.

if i throw a snicker wrapper in a fire, and you're not looking directly at me when i do it, you would never know it even happened, because it would be gone and over with. therefore, its not a camp nuisance. if you throw a bottle in, it melts and drips and smoulders and never really burns away, and makes the whole area stink, thats a different ball game -- whether or not you pick it up in the morning.

the only thing i throw in a fire is something i know will burn up nearly instantly -- small candy wrappers, waxy oatmeal packets, and nothing foil -- and usually only when its more convenient to do so than to dig out a trash bag. i dont start a fire and dig out the trash and start sifting through it for what i can burn. i DO pack out the rest... all the big stuff, the plastic containers (peanut butter, fruit, etc).

[Wags]

you gotta be ****ting me people are arguing about this

[Zander 2831]

I think it is a good discussion. We make these choices daily. It is reminding me that what gets purchased in the first place ends up in someone else's playground as trash, water or air pollution. To me it all comes down to how aware you are of the pollution you make and then if you are do you give a rats rear end.

Because of limited space, filling up landfills does at least make a point about the quantity of trash. Burn it and the pollutants are just a mystery to most of us.

Like what seems like the majority of posters in this thread have said, I'm not going to get all freaky over a hiker burning small stuff.






I've told him he would have more customers if he stopped transporting to the transfer station and just picked up recyclables. But he won't change. You know how stubborn old people can be.

Weary

He fills a niche and prolly can't make money with the recyclables. Trust me there are plenty of people who just want to toss it all in the same bin and forget about it.

[Bob S]

He fills a niche and prolly can't make money with the recyclables. Trust me there are plenty of people who just want to toss it all in the same bin and forget about it.





And you think the recycling industry has none of this?


I use to work for a company that rebuilt homes (flipped them as the modern world likes to say) and we would take a lot of debris to the dump. One time I was dumping a truckload of junk at the dump, and there was a recycle truck dumping a load of plastic bottles right next to me. It was right out in the open for all that were there to see. I would guess that this is not uncommon, so don’t think just because you put it in a special bin and a truck that has recycle printed on the side that it actually gets recycled.

[Freeleo]

i know a guy who burns his trash...he is a hammock hanger so it doesnt suprise me;)

[hammock engineer]

i know a guy who burns his trash...he is a hammock hanger so it doesnt suprise me;)

You really need to have a sit down talk with this guy about that.:eek:


My favorite is the shelters that have forest service signs saying to pack out or burn all of your trash. The non-burners took it opoun themselves to deface the shelter and try to cover up the burn part of it.

[Freeleo]

You really need to have a sit down talk with this guy about that.:eek:


My favorite is the shelters that have forest service signs saying to pack out or burn all of your trash. The non-burners took it opoun themselves to deface the shelter and try to cover up the burn part of it.

he would never listen...he likes talking as much as i do