Frank's Blog

Frank Niccoli shares his thoughts on everything about gardens, pests and "paper or plastic?", and you'll find his articles both educational and entertaining. After all, do you really know how much oxygen plants provide us every day, and is it important that we know? Read on.......

Off The Top Of My Head

By Frank Niccoli

Simple actions in the realm of ecology make a big difference.  And so it is with the simple question: “paper or plastic?”  Do you know which one to ask for?  I hope that this short essay will help answer that question for you. 

I will be comparing two common grocery sacks normally found at the check stand, and I will be assessing each bag using two measures.  The first will be the amount of total energy used by the individual bag.  This includes the energy to make the bag (process energy) and the energy embodied within the physical materials of the bag.   The second measure is the amount of pollutants produced by either paper or plastic.

In determining the energy used to make the bag, I will consider transportation, electricity, fuel extraction, and processing.  To help simplify the energy units used, I will use the designator for energy of kilojoules (kJ).

Let’s have a look at paper.  In the manufacture of paper, high amounts of coal, petroleum, and wood are used.  A single paper bag uses 350 kJ of coal, 500 kJ of petroleum, and 550 kJ of wood to be produced.  The total amount of expenditure of energy for a single paper bag is 1680 kJ of energy.

How does plastic compare to paper?  Plastic uses natural gas, coal, and petroleum.  Two plastic bags use 240 kJ of petroleum, 160 kJ of coal, and 990 kJ of petroleum.  The total amount is 1,470 kJ, or 13% less energy to produce 2 plastic bags to 1 paper bag.  So far it looks like plastic has the lead.

Pollutants come in three basic flavors: solid, airborne, and atmospheric waste.  Solid refers to the bag arriving at the landfill and to how much material is thrown away at the manufacturing facility.  Airborne and atmospheric waste is concerned with materials that are discharged after receiving emission controls or wastewater treatment. 

Because plastic bags have less overall mass than paper, they produce less solid waste at the landfill.  One paper bag contains 50 grams of waste, and two plastic bags produce 14 grams of waste.  Plastic also produces less atmospheric pollutants.  Two plastic bags produce 1.1 kg of waste, while one paper bag produces 2.6 kg of waste.

When we look at waterborne pollution, we consider it to be pollutants that harm the ecosystem.  Plastic produces 0.1 g and paper produces 1.5 g of waterborne pollutants. 

So far it seems that plastic is the winner and should be the one you need to ask for at the grocery store.  Plastic, in comparison to paper grocery bags, consume 40% less energy than paper, produce 70% fewer atmospheric emissions, releases up to 94% few waterborne wastes, and generates 80% less solid waste.

From what I have written to this point, your choice is simple and clear.  Next time you are at the market and you are confronted with the words “paper or plastic” you will shout with facts backing your decision, “Plastic, please.”  Well, I wish the decision was that clear cut and easy, but there are some other issues that we need to look at. 

The factors that come into play in this equation are the bag manufacturers, garbologists, the environmentalists, and human nature. 

Let’s start with the environmentalist’s take on this issue.  Plastic bags end up on roadsides, in our waterways, and in landfills.  Wildlife swallow them because of the food scents that are in the bags, get their feet and wings caught in them; sea turtles mistake them for jellyfish and eat them causing blockage in their stomachs; whales eat them; they clog sewer lines causing stagnant ponds of waste water; and if the bags are not properly recycled they do not degrade. 

Paper has its list of problems as far as the environmentalists are concerned.  Paper has a higher volume, take up more space at a landfill, and the amount of trees that are removed for the manufacture of paper bags is astronomical.   If 1 ton of paper grocery bags are recycled, 13 to 17 trees are saved.  Because of landfill policies of layering trash and then compacting it, the paper does not degrade because it is deprived of oxygen and water.  Garbologists estimate that it will take a paper bag 40 to 50 years to decompose.

The tally so far is that the bag manufacturers favor the plastic bag and have the data to back their decision, and the environmentalists do not favor either plastic or paper.  The garbologists favor plastic because it takes up significantly less room in the landfill. 

The human nature factor is the only other significant factor in determining the right answer. 

Four to five trillion plastic bags are produced every year, and about 3% are not recycled.  They become litter.  They are in every corner of the planet, including the remote areas of Antarctica.  Although littering and trash laws have reduced the amount dumping, 3% of four trillion is a big number.

The partial answer to this complicated problem of paper or plastic is to reuse and recycle them.  Recycling centers will take plastic bags as well as most supermarkets.  They are then shipped to centers that reduce them into pellets for the remanufacture of plastic bags.  If 1 ton of plastic bags is recycled the energy equivalent of 11 barrels of oil are saved. 

Reuse means that we need to use them.  This has a huge impact.  If, in the San Francisco Bay area, every person used one less grocery bag per year, it would reduce waste by 5 million pounds and save a quarter of a million dollars in disposal costs.  Take them back to the grocery store to bag your groceries a second, third, or fourth time.  Use them until they wear out and then recycled them. 

You can use them as wastebasket liners, store your craft supplies in them, or fill them with a bag of food to take to the homeless shelter. Stash them in your suitcase for storing wet bathing suits, as laundry bags, and even as an emergency suit case for those extras that always accumulate when traveling. Wrap your shoes in them when packing your suitcase.  This will keep the dirt from your shoes away from your clothes.  Store a paintbrush full of oil-base paint in a plastic bag for use the next day.  Wrap the brush in a plastic bag and place it in the refrigerator overnight.  Make a kite out of them.  Store Christmas decorations in them.  Use them for a lunch pail.  Use them as a pooper scooper.  Place outdated or used clothing in them for donation to your favorite charity.

It is a tossup whether paper or plastic grocery bags are the best for the environment.  So what is the answer to “Paper or Plastic?”  They both have their drawbacks.  Neither of them is beneficial to the environment.  They both cost us in terms of dollars and environmental damage to make and to dispose.

My recommendation is that you bring your own cloth bags to the supermarket.  Then you will not have to stand there pondering “paper or plastic, paper or plastic.”  THE ANSWER IS CLOTH.

Back To Top 

How Much Oxygen Do Plants Provide Us?

By Frank Niccoli

In reading a white paper on the CLCA website regarding water conservation I was struck by the phrase that plants provide oxygen for us to breathe.  A simple thought isn’t it? We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.  Have you ever wondered how much oxygen is actually supplied by plants and how much oxygen do we as human beings need?  I decided to find out. 

First of all, how much oxygen does the average Joe or Jill need to breathe in an hour?  And let’s assume for this discussion that Mr. Average is sitting in an easy chair watching the Discovery channel, drinking a beer and not expending a lot of energy.

Well it turns out the Mr. Average takes in about 500mL per breath and takes about 12 breathes a minute.  The lungs have a dead space in them that store 75mL per breath per lung.  So we multiply the 75mL times 2 for 2 lungs per person, and we have 150mL.  Subtract that 150mL from the 500 mL, and we end up with a total of 350mL per breath.  Multiply that by 12 breaths per minute and the total is 4,200 mL of breath per minute. So in one hour Mr. Average Joe needs about 53 Liters of oxygen.  Multiply that by 24 hours in a day, and each of us consumes 1272 liters of oxygen a day.

Let’s talk about plants now.  Most of you know that a plant leaf produces 5mL of oxygen an hour.  If you didn’t know that, then you do now.  There will be a small quiz on this later, so pay attention.

Let’s say that I just finished counting the leaves on my Rhaphiolepis in my front yard and found out that it has 300 leaves.  5mL times 300 equals 1500mL (or 1.5 liters) of oxygen that this plant produces in an hour.  Mr. Average sitting in his easy chair needs 53 liters per hour.  So you can see that my Rhaphiolepis does not produce enough air for Mr. Average to breath for an hour.  We need about 36 Rhaphiolepis to produce enough air for Mr. Average for 1 hour.

Well, the population of the entire world is now 7 billion and growing by the second.  This does not include animals, bugs, combustion engines and other oxygen-consuming beasts.  This is just people.

We would need 232,060,730,400 Rhaphiolepis to provide oxygen for 6,446,131,400 Average Joes and Jills per hour. Since we have 24 hours in a day and plants only work half time (most plants don’t photosynthesize at night), that means that we need 11,138,915,059,200 Rhaphiolepis to make it through a day.  That number is 11 trillion, 138 billion, 131 million, 59 thousand and 200 Rhaphiolepis. 

Back To Top 

The Splendor Of Fall Color

By Frank Niccoli

This is my favorite time of year.  The mad rush of summer is waning and you can visibly notice the changes.  The greatest show on earth is just starting, autumn color

. 

Have you ever wondered why some years are better than others for autumn color?  Oh, sure, you will always have the shades of brown and yellow, but it is the reds and the violets blended in with the yellows and browns that add the fire that truly defines the beauty of autumn color.

So what weather conditions favor the memorable fall color years from the good-but-not-so-great years?  The reds and violets are favored by warm days followed by cool nights.  If during the day the leaves can still photosynthesize while the chlorophyll content is slowly declining, then the reds are enhanced.  The lower the light intensity, the more washed out the colors will be. Rain is the laundry that bleaches out true vivid colors because of reduced photosynthesis. We are lucky to live in the San Francisco Bay Area because the ocean has a moderating effect on our climate, delaying the rains, providing warms days and slowly cooling nights.  This enhances and prolongs the magnificent displays of color changes. 

There are so many great viewing areas.  In Placerville the redbuds are a must-see.  How about Lake Tahoe for spectacular views and fall color?  Another must-see is the Aspens changing in the eastern Sierra.  Convict Lake, McGhee Creek Canyon, Sherwin Creek Road, and Rock Creek Lake are just a few areas that will have the magnificent Aspen fall color. 

This is the time of year that taking a breather is a must.  It has been a hot and long season, and it is time that we abide by our clocks, change our pace, and view the wondrous show that fall color gifts to us.

We Need A New Synonym

 By Frank Niccoli

We need a new synonym.  Somewhere along the way, some of us have moved on to new and better adjectives and some of you have not.  I recently asked a friend of mine how the state convention was and the reply with correct and elongated pronunciation was “Awesome!”  She could have used a plethora of adjectives, yet the word “Awesome” was said with biblical trumpeting, like a chosen note to be sounded from the highest tower.  The word formed in her throat, rumbled across her molars, slid transversely over the tongue, and it leapt into the space between us.  It hung in the air like the odor of overripe flatulent missive, never welcomed by the receiver, but cherished by the giver.

Okay, I understand that we live in busy times, and it is difficult to spend these times looking for new adjectives to use in your everyday sentences, but “Awesome” is overdone, overused and overdue for retirement.  And most of you who use it do not even know what it means.  Your usage is the slang version of the definition. 

I hate articles that have that innocuous phrase “According to Webster’s dictionary the word _________ means” and then the article proceeds to enthuse with a definition gleaned from the august pages of a dictionary, so I will not give you the definition of the word “awesome.”

Do me one favor?  Go look up the word “Awesome.”  Your dictionary could use some daylight on the inside of its pages, and you could probably use the exercise.  So walk over and look up the word “Awesome.”  After digesting the meaning of the word, let your eyes meander to that column that has the heading in bold letters synonyms and pick a new one.  Say it out loud.  Use it in a sentence.  Roll it in your mouth.  Shout it in the shower.   Meditate to it.  Find a canyon and echo back to yourself.   Write it a hundred times.   Stand in front of the mirror and see how your new synonym looks as you form the word.

Then, bury the word “awesome” in the deepest folds of your mind.  Place layers of new experiences around it and pile new words on top of it.  Make it impossible for the word to lazily slip from the pleats and the crenellate folds of your brain. You will never use that word again.

When you find yourself in a position to exclaim about the magnificence of something, use your new synonym.  Use it with the pride of someone who does not slothfully mimic exclamations uttered by some prepubescent harlequin on MTV with his hat sideways shouting about justice or booty or the lack of both accompanied by a back beat heavy enough to clatter the coherence of most conscious, refined citizenry of this planet.

For those who do not want to infiltrate the inner sanctum of your dictionary with blessed light from our own luminary orb, here are some suggestions for your new synonym.  There should be enough adjectives here to end the parrot like prattle of a single emoted word to encapsulate your total emotional, physical, and spiritual psyche forever without ever using the word “awesome.” 

Let me personally introduce you to your new synonyms.  Impressive, exalted, grand, moving, stirring, poignant, touching, majestic, inspiring, astral, noble, honorable, illustrious, magnificent, regal, royal, exciting, exhilarating, encouraging, heartening, stimulating, rousing, illuminating, invigorating, inspirit.

Or, if these words hold no interest, how about uncommon, extraordinary, excellent, imposing, dazzling, splendid, inconceivable, incredible, superb, resplendent or glorious?  Let us take a few moments of lucid reflection and say goodbye to “awesome.”  It has served us well, albeit, way to long. 

Back To Top