Página InicialGruposDiscussãoMaisZeitgeist
Pesquisar O Sítio Web
Este sítio web usa «cookies» para fornecer os seus serviços, para melhorar o desempenho, para analítica e (se não estiver autenticado) para publicidade. Ao usar o LibraryThing está a reconhecer que leu e compreende os nossos Termos de Serviço e Política de Privacidade. A sua utilização deste sítio e serviços está sujeita a essas políticas e termos.

Resultados dos Livros Google

Carregue numa fotografia para ir para os Livros Google.

A carregar...

Rubbish!: The Archaeology of Garbage (1992)

por William L. Rathje, Cullen Murphy

MembrosCríticasPopularidadeAvaliação médiaMenções
343974,923 (4.06)6
It is from the discards of former civilizations that archaeologists have reconstructed most of what we know about the past, and it is through their examination of today's garbage that William Rathje and Cullen Murphy inform us of our present. Rubbish! is their witty and erudite investigation into all aspects of the phenomenon of garbage. Rathje and Murphy show what the study of garbage tells us about a population's demographics and buying habits. Along the way, they dispel the common myths about our "garbage crisis"--about fast-food packaging and disposable diapers, about biodegradable garbage and the acceleration of the average family's garbage output. They also suggest methods for dealing with the garbage that we do have.… (mais)
A carregar...

Adira ao LibraryThing para descobrir se irá gostar deste livro.

Ainda não há conversas na Discussão sobre este livro.

» Ver também 6 menções

Mostrando 1-5 de 9 (seguinte | mostrar todos)
This book may have been written thirty years ago, but much of what is told is still relevant. The myths that it debunks continue to crop up every once in a while such as the Pampers in landfills, polysterene in landfills, the biodegradability of plastics and paper, and much more. The politics of trash is fascinating as is the science behind biodegradability (which rarely happens despite claims that it does). The history of trash and its influence on civilizations and what can be learned from trash in archeology is worth the reading of the book. I never knew that there was so much I didn't know about garbage, including all the terms used to describe various types of trash. The information in this book is told with humor and is based on a very thorough and scientifically rigorous Garbage Project. ( )
  Kimberlyhi | Apr 15, 2023 |
An eye-opening excursion through the world of rubbish, as Rathie leads us through scenarios like how everything is recycled in Mexico, finding an intact yacht under the streets of New York and how many attempts by well-meaning people to reduce waste has the opposite effect.

I read the original edition of "Rubbish" back in the 1990s so it is obviously somewhat out of date but it is unlikely that any newer book on the subject will be as engagingly written as "Rubbish". ( )
  MiaCulpa | May 3, 2019 |
Fascinating, counterintuitive, and useful. My previous books from the “landfill” reading program (Waste and Want and Gone Tomorrow) were both by journalists and full of the typical litany about the evils of capitalism, consumerism and waste. Rubbish!, OTOH, is by a scientist – archaeologist William Rathje – and is full of data rather than unchecked assertions. Some of that data is jawdropping.


Rathje was an archaeology professor at the University of Arizona in Tucson. After initial research at Mayan sites piqued his interest in waste disposal (he comments that the Maya, rather than conforming to the stereotype of primitive people scrupulously reusing anything, “would throw away a Cadillac if the ashtray was full), Rathje started “The Garbage Project”. Initially this consisted of some contract work for the USDA about people’s eating habits – his team approached randomly selected Tucson residents from different ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds and asked to collect and sort through their garbage, with follow-up interviews (for the first counterintuitive fact, people were much more willing to have their garbage picked through than be interviewed). This disclosed that a long list of young wives tales about garage were just plain wrong:


* People are very poor at estimating their food consumption, tending to overestimate the amount of “healthy” foods they eat and underestimating the “unhealthy” foods; for example, based on packaging found in trash, Tucson residents overestimated their cottage cheese consumption by a factor of three and underestimated their candy consumption by a factor of two. (Although Rathje doesn’t mention it, this is significant for many diet related disease studies, which often not only use people’s reporting of their food consumption, but their memories of food consumption years earlier).


* As a corollary to the above, people were better at estimating their neighbors’ food and alcoholic beverage consumption than their own.


* Advertised shortages increase waste. People “stock up” on items and then discard them unused when the shortage is over.


* Garbage expands to fill the space available. When some communities began using large curbside containers for semiautomated garbage pickup, waste volume increased. Apparently people often stockpile things that won’t fit in a standard residential garbage can but discard them when they get a 90-gallon container.


* Residential hazardous waste disposal increases after (not during) publicly advertised disposal days. The advertisement draws people’s attention to things like waste paint, pesticides, solvents and so on; then they don’t get around to disposing of it on the special pickup days but dump it later. Just like the mis-estimation of food waste, people dispose of much more hazardous waste than they claim they do.


* It is apparently a Hispanic tradition that all baby food is prepared from scratch. No Hispanic mother in the study admitted to buying any commercial baby food; however Hispanic households discarded just as many baby food containers as Anglo households. (There was one pronounced ethnic difference, though; the most popular baby food in Hispanic households was pureed squash, while the most popular in Anglo households was pureed peas; conversely squash was the least popular baby food in Anglo households and peas were the least popular with Hispanics).


* Sometime later the Garbage Project did a similar sample in Mexico City and refuted a previously held theory of assimilation – it was believed immigrant food habits would be intermediate between those in their native land and those in their new country. This turned out to be dramatically wrong; in fact Mexican immigrants to the US eat more beef than their Anglo neighbors, eat more white bread, eat more high-sugar cereals, and drink more sugary beverages (and much more in all these categories than native Mexicans do). This was dubbed “the Hollywood Hypothesis” – the idea that immigrant consumed the way television and movies suggested their neighbors did, not the way they actually did.


* And on the same note there were wide differences between affluent Mexicans and poor Mexicans, but often in a contrary direction from relationships in America. For example, in the US canned vegetables are more likely to be eaten in lower income families; in Mexico City it’s the other way around. Similarly cigarettes are more likely to be consumed by the upper class in Mexico City and by the lower class in the US. One very strange observation was the use of toilet paper – affluent Mexicans not only use twice as much toilet paper as their lower class co-nationals, but almost six times as much as affluent Americans. (A speculative explanation was toilet paper gets used for a wider variety of purposes in the US than in Mexico).


While continuing to investigate home garbage disposal, the Garbage Project continued to landfill sampling, using a bucket auger to bring up samples from various levels in landfills across the US and Canada (Rathje’s description of a bucket auger is somewhat different from my own experience, but I only used one once and it may have been aberrant). This approach also debunked many of the popular green myths surrounding waste disposal:


* Plastics are an insignificant contributor to landfills by volume, making up less than 1% (public polls from the time Rathje was doing the work estimated plastic contribution at 29%). Not only that, plastic volume is decreasing with time – not because less is discarded, but because manufacturers keep developing ways to make plastic products lighter in weight and more compressible). Rathje speculates that plastic waste figures largely in the environmental litany because plastic products are usually colorful and visible while paper waste tends to be less conspicuous.


* Disposable diapers were estimated by the public at an astonishing 41% of landfill volume; the actual volume is less than 2%. Not only that, only one pathogenic organism was ever cultured from a landfilled diaper by the project’s microbiologist, and it wasn’t clear if that virus actually came from the diaper or from surrounding landfill debris. Rathje critiques two studies of relative energy usage by disposable versus washable diapers; not surprisingly the one financed by the washable diaper industry found that disposables consumed six times as much energy as washables, while the one financed by the disposable diaper industry only acknowledged twice as much energy usage. There were flaws in both studies, but more in the washables one; it didn’t account for energy used to grow cotton or transport diapers.


* The single largest contributor to landfills by volume (and Rathje notes volume is the limiting factor; nobody particularly cares how much a landfill weighs) is paper. The public was fairly good as estimating the volume of waste newspaper (public said 11%, actual was 13%) but way off in total paper products (public said 6%, actual is 40%).


* Modern landfills do not “biodegrade” anything in significant amounts. The project not only found things like newspapers and paper packaging in fairly intact condition in landfill layers that were 20 years old, they also found undecayed and apparently still edible (although nobody actually tried) food products in the same layers.


Continuing unapologetically with counterintuitive and “contrarian” positions, Rathje doesn’t think much of recycling. He notes that what most people think of as “recycling” is actually “sorting”, which is the easy part; unless there’s a use for the “recycled” material it’s just waste disposal with an extra step. In the “Law of Unintended Consequences” department, Rathje notes that paper recycling in the US contributed to the decline and demise of some youth sports programs in Europe; these had been getting a significant amount of their finances from “paper drives” but bulk paper from the US began arriving for one sixth the cost that recyclers had been paying for European paper. Metal recycling works very well; in a typical year more automobiles are recycled in the US than are produced – but even that has an impact on paper recycling; one of the major uses for short fiber paper (unsuitable for recycling to writing paper) is sound proofing material inside automobile body panels. Thus when the US car market tanks, so does paper recycling.


Rathje also takes a contrarian position on incineration, suggesting that waste-to-energy facilities can work if managed carefully. The main problem is feedstock; the incoming material has to be fairly carefully sorted – at considerable expense in labor and effort – to make sure it’s suitable for burning. It’s suggested it will make the most sense in places where landfills are just not practical – he cites Long Island and southeast Massachusetts, both with high groundwater tables, as potential candidates.


As you might gather, I think pretty highly of this book, especially compared to the others cited. However, it’s not without a few flaws – the most important being that it’s dated; originally published in 1992, with a second edition in 2001. That means that a lot of the public attitudes toward garbage Rathje cites may have changed, due to ongoing lifestyle changes. Since Dr. Rathje died in 2012, there probably won’t be another updated edition. He was an editor of the Encyclopedia of Consumption and Waste, published 2012; from online descriptions it’s (at least for now) the definitive work; unfortunately at $350 it’s outside my means no matter how fascinating it promises to be. Maybe it will turn up at a garage sale. ( )
1 vote setnahkt | Dec 18, 2017 |
This book documents the fascinating efforts of the Garbage Project in Tuscon, AZ to use archaeological practices to study garbage - officially known as municipal solid waste - collected from outside peoples' homes as well as excavating landfills. These studies show patterns of consumption and disposal that are different from what people volunteer in surveys. Rathje also describes many fascinating I-never-thought-of-that aspects of garbage and it's disposal in landfill and incinerators, including a historical survey. He also debunks many popular beliefs about trash. For instance, things people think are common in landfills (styrofoam and diapers) are not, while we don't usually think of the things that do take up a lot of landfill space (construction debris and paper). And while the concept of biodegradable waste is popular, excavations show that very little actually biodegrades in landfills, although this may be a good thing as it prevents the creating of waste slurry that contaminate water and surrounding areas. Even recycling is more complicated than believe, as many things collected to recycle (with the exception of aluminum) far exceed the demand of manufactures to recycle them. This book is surprising in both what it reveals about humanity through our waste as well as the sense of optimism it gives in that the waste problems while huge are not as bad as we may think they are. Much of what is described in the book happened 20 or more years ago. I'd love to see an update on the Garbage Project and how the challenges of municipal solid waste are being addressed today ( )
2 vote Othemts | Dec 9, 2015 |
Definitely a life-changing book. Much of what I thought I knew about landfills was incorrect. Most importantly, plastic is not our most voluminous garbage; paper is -- by an order of magnitude. Current plastics contain a lot of air and compact very well in the modern garbage truck. Our landfills aren't overflowing with non-biodegradable plastics; they're overflowing with biodegradable paper that isn't bio-degrading because the landfill is anaerobic. So, now I'm much more careful with my paper recycling and worry less about plastics (though obviously they still use hydrocarbon resources that we might put to better use than water bottles.)

I highly recommend this book. It's very readable (though a tad repetitious towards the end) and full of counter-intuitive information. ( )
1 vote aulsmith | May 25, 2012 |
Mostrando 1-5 de 9 (seguinte | mostrar todos)
sem críticas | adicionar uma crítica

» Adicionar outros autores

Nome do autorPapelTipo de autorObra?Estado
William L. Rathjeautor principaltodas as ediçõescalculado
Murphy, Cullenautor principaltodas as ediçõesconfirmado
Tem de autenticar-se para poder editar dados do Conhecimento Comum.
Para mais ajuda veja a página de ajuda do Conhecimento Comum.
Título canónico
Título original
Títulos alternativos
Data da publicação original
Pessoas/Personagens
Locais importantes
Acontecimentos importantes
Filmes relacionados
Epígrafe
Dedicatória
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
To the memory of Thomas Price
Primeiras palavras
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
On a crisp October morning not long ago the sun ascended above the Atlantic Ocean and turned its gaze on a team of young researchers as they swarmed over what may be the largest archaeological site in the world.
Citações
Últimas palavras
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Nota de desambiguação
Editores da Editora
Autores de citações elogiosas (normalmente na contracapa do livro)
Língua original
DDC/MDS canónico
LCC Canónico

Referências a esta obra em recursos externos.

Wikipédia em inglês

Nenhum(a)

It is from the discards of former civilizations that archaeologists have reconstructed most of what we know about the past, and it is through their examination of today's garbage that William Rathje and Cullen Murphy inform us of our present. Rubbish! is their witty and erudite investigation into all aspects of the phenomenon of garbage. Rathje and Murphy show what the study of garbage tells us about a population's demographics and buying habits. Along the way, they dispel the common myths about our "garbage crisis"--about fast-food packaging and disposable diapers, about biodegradable garbage and the acceleration of the average family's garbage output. They also suggest methods for dealing with the garbage that we do have.

Não foram encontradas descrições de bibliotecas.

Descrição do livro
Resumo Haiku

Current Discussions

Nenhum(a)

Capas populares

Ligações Rápidas

Avaliação

Média: (4.06)
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5 1
3 6
3.5 2
4 15
4.5 3
5 9

É você?

Torne-se num Autor LibraryThing.

 

Acerca | Contacto | LibraryThing.com | Privacidade/Termos | Ajuda/Perguntas Frequentes | Blogue | Loja | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliotecas Legadas | Primeiros Críticos | Conhecimento Comum | 203,235,613 livros! | Barra de topo: Sempre visível