2009/5/28 Frank Peelo <f26p at eircom.net>:
> Timothy Murphy wrote:
>>> On Thursday 28 May 2009 08:41:30 Josh Glover wrote:
>>>>> 2009/5/26 Brian Foster <blf at utvinternet.ie>:
>>>>>>> I'm presuming the impact of rechargeable[s]
>>>> is less than the impact of all the non-rechargeables.
>>>>>> I hope this is true, as I labour under the same presumption. :)
>>> Has anyone pointers to research on this topic?
>>>> [C]ommon sense seems to me to suggest you are wrong.
>> Suppose a rechargeable battery can be re-charged 100 times
>> and holds 1/2 the charge of a non-rechargeable.
>> Then you would be saying that for some reason
>> 50 non-rechargable batteries require less re-cycling
>> than 1 rechargeable.
>> As I read it, they seem to be saying the opposite - that the environmental
> impact of the rechargeable "is less than the impact of all the
That's what I thought Brian was saying as well, and my editing (above)
seems to support that fact. Once I removed all the supporting clauses
and qualifiers, his sentence is quite clear.
Common sense would dictate that recyclables have less of an
environmental impact, but common sense is sometimes, er, a little too
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!