Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheGallopedHigh | Hacker News Reader

The ‘smart’ in the title refers to a method of incineration without the emission of toxic gases; the air is scrubbed clean. So that money making scheme probably won’t work.

View on HN

that's bs all incinerating technologies produce toxic gases. for incinerating plastic the argument is that it's less toxic than letting it sit in a landfill.

As you probably know there are problematic toxins like dioxins that stay in the environment basically forever and toxins like NOx that are no big deal because they decay rapidly to safer substances.

These incinerators are not your typical campfire. When your scout master yelled at you for throwing plastic in the fire, he was right because such a fire is relatively cool and has lots of incomplete combustion. Burning plastic in such fires produces a lot of nasty gases.

But modern industrial incinerators are another sort of beast. They burn hot enough to tear apart most of the nasty shit and burn that too.

I am well aware. the point is that these systems are not perfect and will lead toxic fumes being released no matter how efficient you make it. sweden is doing this and have clean air purely because of them being conveniently located under a jet stream that sends all their air pollution to asia.

Respectfully, if Asian governments are blaming Sweden for their air quality, they are pulling a fast one...

so you are criticizing them for polluting by defending a policy that dump pollution on them. talk about being out of touch with reality.

You've not provided any real evidence for modern incinerators run by first world nations polluting as you claim. All you've provided is rather paranoid conspiracy theories. The fact that you started this conversation out with tired tropes about the rich and the pharma industry should have been my first hint that this would be an unproductive conversation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com