|
Hi Dan,
Comments below:
I have interests in this general area, but am too swamped now to email much. One quick/general idea for now: Yeah, me too. Except I'm a more talented procrastinator than you
are!
Our human problems (bioaccumulation in our selves of our own toxins, like mercury, PCB's. etc. etc.) stem largely from not creating the metabolism and repair processes for new molecules or materials at the same time, and keeping these complementary processes coupled and integrated ever and always. That is, we make (metabolize, transform) many things that we never bother to un-make (repair, restore to elemental and basic form as you cite for water, etc.) them to put them back the way they started, as safe and inert building blocks. Right, which is what the molecular recycling idea could potentially
remedy. I think we need a theoretical chemist to give us a better idea of what
would be entailed to do this kind of recycling. But if you take a volatile
hydrocarbon, like the following:
An aliphatic hydrocarbon, Alkanes are also known as
paraffins. The simplest alkanes are named as follows:
These are all different combinations of the same two elements.
While, in this case, we would find plenty of uses for these molecules, there are
other hydrocarbons which are waste products from other processes. It should not
be difficult to reconfigure molecules at the molecular level and
either make them into molecules of hydrogen and molecules of carbon, or some
other combination/permutation that is either inert or is useful for other
processes-- processes which, perhaps, produce a waste product that is easier to
make inert.
In New York State, about 15 years ago, there was a plan to build
"waste to energy incinerators" which were supposed to burn garbage at very
high temperatures and the resulting chemical reactions were supposedly going to
render everything "inert". They said the benefits of this plan would be that we
could reclaim the heat and turn it into usable electricity, while slowing
down the landfill use-up time (we'd still have to landfill the ash but the
volume would be much reduced). However, it was proven that not all the chemical
reactions would render various components of the waste stream inert and some new
dangerous combinations would actually be created. The main benefit to the whole
incinerator scheme, in my view, was that it wouldn't require any changes other
than destination of waste collection trucks. New Yorkers preferred to recycle,
so the incinerator scheme was trashed (thank goodness!).
But the idea of molecular reconfiguration, as a form of recycling,
is worth exploring, it seems to me. This deals with simple
organization and should be perfectly "do-able" with current scientific
modes and methods. Anybody have a friend who's a theoretical
chemist?
Judith
|