User talk:Cardamon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Source for Biodegradable plastic article 2 Bio-plastics etc. 3 Copy + Paste Moves 4 RfC on UKnewthat 5 Beam dump 6 Thank you 7 Your input is requested 8 Original resarch spotted

[edit] Source for Biodegradable plastic article

The Biodegradable plastic article has several sentences that are the same or very similar to sentences in this one paragraph source: http://www.bio-tec.biz/biobatch.html . Is it a copyright violation? Or did you perhaps write both sources? Cardamon 15:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote all sources...

FTC Guidlines for environmental or claiming biodegradable. I would suggest you view the article. You can not claim biodegradation if your plastic product can't be thrown in a landfill due to 94.7% of all plastic in the US is thrown there. So you can't claim biodegradable.

2. Degradable/Biodegradable/Photodegradable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable. An unqualified claim that a product or package is degradable, biodegradable or photodegradable should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence that the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal.

Claims of degradability, biodegradability or photodegradability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about: (a) the product or package's ability to degrade in the environment where it is customarily disposed; and (b) the rate and extent of degradation.

3. Compostable: It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is compostable. An unqualified claim that a product or package is compostable should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence that all the materials in the product or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner in an appropriate composting program or facility, or in a home compost pile or device.

Claims of compostability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception. An unqualified claim may be deceptive: (1) if municipal composting facilities are not available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities where the package is sold; (2) if the claim misleads consumers about the environmental benefit provided when the product is disposed of in a landfill; or (3) if consumers misunderstand the claim to mean that the package can be safely composted in their home compost pile or device, when in fact it cannot.

Example 1: A manufacturer indicates that its unbleached coffee filter is compostable. The unqualified claim is not deceptive provided the manufacturer can substantiate that the filter can be converted safely to usable compost in a timely manner in a home compost pile or device, as well as in an appropriate composting program or facility.

Example 2: A lawn and leaf bag is labeled as "Compostable in California Municipal Yard Waste Composting Facilities." The bag contains toxic ingredients that are released into the compost material as the bag breaks down. The claim is deceptive if the presence of these toxic ingredients prevents the compost from being usable.

Example 3: A manufacturer indicates that its paper plate is suitable for home composting. If the manufacturer possesses substantiation for claiming that the paper plate can be converted safely to usable compost in a home compost pile or device, this claim is not deceptive even if no municipal composting facilities exist.

Example 4: A manufacturer makes an unqualified claim that its package is compostable. Although municipal composting facilities exist where the product is sold, the package will not break down into usable compost in a home compost pile or device. To avoid deception, the manufacturer should disclose that the package is not suitable for home composting.

Example 5: A nationally marketed lawn and leaf bag is labeled "compostable." Also printed on the bag is a disclosure that the bag is not designed for use in home compost piles. The bags are in fact composted in municipal yard waste composting programs in many communities around the country, but such programs are not available to a substantial majority of consumers where the bag is sold. The claim is deceptive since reasonable consumers living in areas not served by municipal yard waste programs may understand the reference to mean that composting facilities accepting the bags are available in their area. To avoid deception, the claim should be qualified to indicate the limited availability of such programs, for example, by stating, "Appropriate facilities may not exist in your area." Other examples of adequate qualification of the claim include providing the approximate percentage of communities or the population for which such programs are available.

Example 6: A manufacturer sells a disposable diaper that bears the legend, "This diaper can be composted where municipal solid waste composting facilities exist. There are currently [X number of] municipal solid waste composting facilities across the country." The claim is not deceptive, assuming that composting facilities are available as claimed and the manufacturer can substantiate that the diaper can be converted safely to usable compost in municipal solid waste composting facilities.

Example 7: A manufacturer markets yard waste bags only to consumers residing in particular geographic areas served by county yard waste composting programs. The bags meet specifications for these programs and are labeled, "Compostable Yard Waste Bag for County Composting Programs." The claim is not deceptive. Because the bags are compostable where they are sold, no qualification is required to indicate the limited availability of composting facilities.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides92.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Callsign (talk • contribs) 05:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the URL. What has happened to your User page? Cardamon 23:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bio-plastics etc.

Hi, Mrs Trellis. About your recent edit to Biodegradable plastic, I'd just like to point out that "tons" is perfectly good spelling in the United States of America. So is "metabolize", which you changed in a previous edit to that page. Of course, you also eliminated some genuine mistakes. This is really no big deal, but I thought I'd mention it. Cardamon 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Noted your comments about my edits - I changes tons to tonnes only because they are the internationally accepted SI units for this measure of mass and as they so closely align with tons it seemed to make more sense - especially as the plastic indiustry is international. I changed metabolize to metabolise because I had thought that the original authorship was a brit using Commonwealth English . I may have been mistaken in which case my apologies - just trying to keep articles within WP guidelines ! Mrs Trellis 08:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I'm okay with tonnes. I have no idea what Callsign's nationality is. Bio-Tec Environmental, to which s/he keeps inserting references, is located in the state of New Mexico. I notice that s/he replied here to my question about copyright by saying that s/he had "written all sources". Cardamon 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy + Paste Moves

Please do not make copy+paste moves between articles. At the top of every page in Wikipedia, you will find a move button. Feel free to use it when correcting a simple spelling mistake in an article. Regards alphaChimp^(talk) 04:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed your error. See Hieronymus machine. alphaChimp^(talk) 04:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that. I'll do it that way next time. Cardamon 04:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. A lot of people don't know. alphaChimp^(talk) 04:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on UKnewthat

Just wondering what you think of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uknewthat? Cardamon 08:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cardamon, as I've taken admin action and may have to take more, it's best that I don't get involved in the RfC. Thanks for letting me know about it though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beam dump

Thanks for your work on the subject. I had never heard of a beam dump for charged particles, but in retrospect, their existence should have been obvious. It looks pretty good already; I had imagined it would sit around a lot longer when I first wrote it. --Joel 08:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original resarch spotted

According to your report on Feb. 9. 2007, you spotted an original research in the following text:

Before the present general relativistic cosmological model was developed, Albert Einstein proposed a way to fix his so far incomplete equations by adding to them a constant. The constant would come to be known later as the cosmological constant. It is a necessary part of Einstein's equations till today.

One might note, that there exists an opinion among those astrophysicists and cosmologists who still think in terms of Newtonian physics that Einstein added his cosmological constant to dynamically stabilize a cosmological scenario that would necessarily collapse in on itself due to the gravitational attraction of the matter constituents in the universe. Since, as they would put it, such a universe would need a source of "anti-gravity" to balance out the mutual attraction. However, in Einstein's theory there is no mutual gravitational attraction in the world so there was no danger for the universe to collapse. The cosmological constant was then a way of fixing the math of the equations to reflect this fact. It is similar to a contant of integration that is added to a solution of any integral to reflect particular physical conditions (in this case the assumed by Einstein the stability of the universe). The cosmological constant were put back to zero by cosmologists who took charge of maintaining the general relativity after Einstein turned his attention to other projects. They wanted to reflect their idea that the observed in 1928 expansion of the universe will slow down due to the gravitational attraction of the matter constituents in the universe. The cosmological constant was restored back after astronomical observations proved in 1998 that the the observed expansion of the universe is not slowing down but accelerating.

Would you mind telling me which part of this text is original research according to you? (Note that the text in italics is left from the previous version to clarify the issue) Jim 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)