I'm not sure I trust that site's assessment of recycling. It's true
that recycling creates pollution, and that's because it uses energy,
just like everything else. When you compare the total lifecycle energy
cost of different materials, you find varying degrees of recycling
success. Some materials, like aluminum, are so energy intensive and
environmentally destructive to "create" that's it's completely stupid
NOT to recycle them. Others, like certain plastics, are a bit harder to
figure out.
As far as useful recycling of sensitive documents is concerned, I think
we're going about it the wrong way. The only way you can be certain
confidential data is not released is if YOU destroy it. You can't 100%
trust throwing it out, or recycling/reusing it, because those involve
transportation. A year or two ago I saw a Discovery channel program on
a plan for a new high-efficiency office building. In the basement is a
huge biodiesel generator which runs on a biodiesel sludge, which uses
paper and other organic waste generated by the office as fuel. What
better way to ensure the total destruction of sensitive data? You
produce clean energy, totally destroy data ON-SITE, and offset your
electricity costs.
Man, I should be a democratic spokesman. "/There's a better way!/",
haha. Although, I don't think my eyebrows arch enough for that.
-chris
Travis Roy wrote:
Its clear that one never "really" knows how recycled materials are going
to be used so confidential materials must always be destroyed rather
than recycled. (duh)
Very true, most stuff being sent out to be "recycled" tends to end up
in the trash anyway:
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=r
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
