Honda Car Forum

"Doug McCrary" <DougMcCrary@spamcop.net> wrote in
news:yIWGe.12547$W%5.11957@trnddc05:

>
> Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
> news:Xns96A3D40B3EA56jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83.. .
>> jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
>> news:jason-3007051017330001@pm4-broad- 55.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
>>
>> >
>> > The current edition of "Car and Driver" (magazine) has an
>> > interesting article about the dark side of the hybrids on page 26.
>> > The date on the cover is September 2005.
>> >
>> > Many of the so called "greenies" have purchased hybrids because
>> > they really care about the environment. I learned about something
>> > from the article that I had never thought about before. What's
>> > going to happen to those millions of batteries in hybrid vehicles
>> > after they wear out? They will be placed in landfills. Imagine the
>> > harm that those batteries may do to the enviroment after they are
>> > laying in a landfill for 50 years.
>> >
>> > If you own or are planning to buy a hybrid vehicle, I advise you to
>> > read the article.
>> >
>> > Jason
>> >
>>
>> Lead-acid and other types of batteries (NiCd and NiMH,Li-ion)are
>> already recycled,why should hybrid auto batteries escape that?
>>
> Apparently, not. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WPIE/Batteries/
> ... After February 8, 2006, all batteries in California must be
> recycled, or taken to a household hazardous waste disposal facility, a
> universal waste handler (e.g., storage facility or broker), or an
> authorized recycling facility. ...
> It looks like that's partly due to federal regs, but I'm too lazy to
> look.
>
>> IMO,there would be valuable materials that could be recovered,in the
>> amounts that will be discarded.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Yanik
>> jyanik
>> at
>> kua.net
>
>
>

Sure,there are many people who just toss their batteries in the trash,just
because they are unaware of alternatives,or just take the easiest route.

But Radio Shack and other stores that sell batteries accept them for
recycling.And most auto stores require a "core" fee that is refunded when
you return the old LA battery,and they send them off for recycling.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Steve Bigelow" <stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote in
newsdadnVehus3aRHHfRVn-gQ@rogers.com:

>
> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
> news:Xns96A3D50822383jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83.. .
>> "Steve Bigelow" <stevebigelowXXX@rogers.com> wrote in
>> news:gvqdnUTaMpe6nHHfRVn-hQ@rogers.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
>>> news:elmop-E6BE88.18342330072005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
>>>> In article <kknne1t1eropvvu7f34ufmjs6lgtq80uct@4ax.com>,
>>>> Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is what Toyota has to say about battery replacement
>>>>> and recycling:
>>>>
>>>> Spun like a member of the Clinton family.
>>>>
>>>> If you believe Toyota's PR spin 100%, you're in for a big surprise.
>>>
>>> ....and?
>>> That's it?
>>>
>>> Please enlighten us with your wisdom on the subject.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> NiMH and NiCd can only be recharged a number of times before their
>> capacity
>> drops off,and L-A batteries suffer from sulfation,electrolyte
>> loss,and vibration/shock damage(material falls out of the lead
>> grids,shorts the cell). Hot environments like the Southwest and
>> Florida will shorten battery
>> life further.
>> I don't know of any rechargeable battery chemistry that can be
>> recharged 100,000 times.
>
> Well, a hybrids' certainly wouldn't need to unless it only got 3 miles
> per charge.
>
>
>

They get charged before they run completely down;partial charges,"topping
off".They still are charge cycles.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

>>I'm simply pointing out that, like any good corporate PR machine, Toyota
is spinning their side of the story very hard in order to sell more stuff.
By that token, you shouldn't simply believe it wholesale without
investigating it more.<<

Congratulations. You've just won the grand prize for missing the point.
They have data. You don't. You just assume that they're "spinning" because
they're a big, bad company with an axe to grind. YOU made the allegation
that they're "spinning." Where's your proof? Show us your data to prove
their data wrong. We're waiting.

>>But because I'm saying that, you decide that Toyota's press release must
be 100% correct and truthful?<<

Add to the above cited prize another one for putting words in someone's
mouth. I decided no such thing. I see, so far, no evidence to contradict
the press release, but that doesn't mean the evidence does or does not
exist. You, OTOH, just assume it's a lie.

Still waiting for that proof.

In article <KpWdnZcOoc14lHDfRVn-1w@comcast.com>,
"Sid Schweiger" <spam@this.cretin> wrote:

> >>I'm simply pointing out that, like any good corporate PR machine, Toyota
> is spinning their side of the story very hard in order to sell more stuff.
> By that token, you shouldn't simply believe it wholesale without
> investigating it more.<<
>
> Congratulations. You've just won the grand prize for missing the point.
> They have data. You don't.

They have an agenda--sell more cars.

I don't. I simply don't like being spoon-fed by people who have an
agenda.

If you enjoy being spoon-fed by people who have an agenda--and
everything you say points that direction--that's your problem.



> You just assume that they're "spinning" because
> they're a big, bad company with an axe to grind.

Is it, then, your assertion that they are NOT spinning?


> YOU made the allegation
> that they're "spinning." Where's your proof? Show us your data to prove
> their data wrong. We're waiting.

Hmmmmmm.....I don't think I ever said that one way or another.

I simply said "beware, and investigate it more". You, on the other
hand, appear to be saying that there's no need to investigate it
more--that everything they say in that PR piece is 100% the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

One wonders why you would say that.



> I see, so far, no evidence to contradict
> the press release,

I see, so far, no evidence to support the press release. Toyota said
some things. I say, that's nice--but investigate further. You say, "if
they said it, I assume that it's 100% true and you have to prove
otherwise." That's your problem.

"Sid Schweiger" <spam@this.cretin> wrote in
news:KpWdnZcOoc14lHDfRVn-1w@comcast.com:

>>>I'm simply pointing out that, like any good corporate PR machine,
>>>Toyota
> is spinning their side of the story very hard in order to sell more
> stuff. By that token, you shouldn't simply believe it wholesale
> without investigating it more.<<
>
> Congratulations. You've just won the grand prize for missing the
> point. They have data. You don't.

Tobacco companies had data,too,yet still told people smoking was safe.

And auto companies often have "hidden" warranties or don't bother telling
people about free repairs to correct deficiencies.Toyota is not any
"saint".They,like any other product seller,are going to paint their product
in the best possible light,and not disclose and downsides.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article <Xns96A4C0182982Fjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

> "Sid Schweiger" <spam@this.cretin> wrote in
> news:KpWdnZcOoc14lHDfRVn-1w@comcast.com:
>
> >>>I'm simply pointing out that, like any good corporate PR machine,
> >>>Toyota
> > is spinning their side of the story very hard in order to sell more
> > stuff. By that token, you shouldn't simply believe it wholesale
> > without investigating it more.<<
> >
> > Congratulations. You've just won the grand prize for missing the
> > point. They have data. You don't.
>
> Tobacco companies had data,too,yet still told people smoking was safe.
>
> And auto companies often have "hidden" warranties or don't bother telling
> people about free repairs to correct deficiencies.Toyota is not any
> "saint".They,like any other product seller,are going to paint their product
> in the best possible light,and not disclose and downsides.

(just waiting here for Sid to respond. Not holding my breath, but
still...)

>>Tobacco companies had data,too,yet still told people smoking was safe.<<

I deeply appreciate you making my point for me. Just as multiple
disinterested parties came up with the data to contradict the tobacco
companies (which is what got them to admit that they had the same data), I'm
still waiting for Elmo P. Anonymous to come up with the data to contradict
Toyota.

In article <SL6dnW0aLqcf-nDfRVn-3w@comcast.com>,
"Sid Schweiger" <spam@this.cretin> wrote:

> >>Tobacco companies had data,too,yet still told people smoking was safe.<<
>
> I deeply appreciate you making my point for me. Just as multiple
> disinterested parties came up with the data to contradict the tobacco
> companies (which is what got them to admit that they had the same data), I'm
> still waiting for Elmo P. Anonymous to come up with the data to contradict
> Toyota.

Um, I don't believe it's up to me to come up with anything. I simply
warned you that Toyota in this case is in the same role as the tobacco
companies, and that you'd be best to be wary.

What part of that didn't you understand, Sid?

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-B9841B.15504631072005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> I simply said "beware, and investigate it more". You, on the other
> hand, appear to be saying that there's no need to investigate it
> more--that everything they say in that PR piece is 100% the truth, the
> whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Well, since Toyota has put their side in black and white, it's up to you to
to do the investigating and come up with something concrete. So far the
assertion that they are lying through their teeth (as they must if the claim
they are recycling the batteries is false) is weaker than the "who shot
Kennedy" conspiracy theories. Give us something we can use. Either you can
catch them in a huge lie or you are blowing smoke.

Mike

In article <-KGdnU0oo_hCj3PfRVn-pg@sedona.net>,
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-B9841B.15504631072005@nntp1.usenetserver.com...
> > I simply said "beware, and investigate it more". You, on the other
> > hand, appear to be saying that there's no need to investigate it
> > more--that everything they say in that PR piece is 100% the truth, the
> > whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
>
> Well, since Toyota has put their side in black and white, it's up to you to
> to do the investigating and come up with something concrete.

Is it your position that Toyota's press releases are 100% truthful and
without omissions?

You miss my whole point.

Let me put it this way: when President Bush puts something in black and
white like that, do you agree that one should be careful and not
necessarily accept what he says at face value?

That's all I said. Nothing more. I never said they were wrong; I said
they were spinning things, exactly like any politician or corporate
flack spins things.

Whenever a company puts out a press release, they're spinning things.
That's why corporations like that have big PR departments, and that's
why they have corporate policies that any contact with the press be done
only by or in conjunction with someone from their corporate PR
department.

All I said was, it looks good--but remember, they have an axe to grind,
and they spin things just like any other corporate or political entity.

Would it surprise any of us if we found out that they weren't being 100%
truthful? Not at all--because it's their job to obfuscate anything that
would be detrimental to their sole job of making money for their
shareholders.