QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
Gerald Goodrich (WA1WIG)
on
July 6, 2007
View comments about this article!
Certainly paper QSL cards transported around the world are the tradition. Perhaps it is time to rethink their value versus impact. We can chop down trees, build and maintain vehicles, burn petro-chemicals for processing and transportation and eventually get a card to the desired station.
What does this get us? -- A piece of paper that may be pretty on a wall and keep the ARRL awards folks happy. Most of these will not be used long, if at all. Can't the same be achieved with less impact?
LOTW only seems to serve one perspective on validity of a QSL record and fails to offer personalization.
eQSL can easily serve the desire for personalized cards if the sender cares to upload a personal photo. Mine have a nature photograph I personally took. Surely eQSL can be improved if users desire.
Some feel eQSL.cc's validation is not strong enough, others have pointed out LOTW's security can be defeated via cooperation. There are user interaction issues with both.
For a considerable number in our hobby, financial costs involved with traditional cards are significant. For others they are insignificant. There seems room for both in the hobby, particularly since the hobby is what individuals make it. Why not just use natural resources for physical cards actually desired?
I fail to believe there is not a solution for both attractive cards and environmental concerns. Isn't it time to consider environmental costs as a separate issue? I think so. We can find a way to electronically transmit authenticated QSL cards and only print those that have meaning to someone! We only need to decide that is a goal and expend some energy getting the resources aligned with the need.
73, gerry WA1WIG
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N7YA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I appreciate your concern, however i dont think that paper qsl's are a major impact on the enviroment any more than enviromentally friendly paper bags at the store in lieu of plastic ones.
I must disagree about the enjoyment factor of paper qsl's, i enjoy every card that i get...i actually break out the box from time to time and thumb through them. im not an old fart or a fuddy duddy by any means, but i dont get the same enjoyment from looking at a card on screen as i do from holding a card that made the trip, was filled out and signed by hand from a real op in some faraway place, this is part of the magic that keeps me in a hobby longer than any other hobby i have attempted to endeavour.
I will absolutely agree with your concept when it comes to needless cards going to mega-contest stations...im sure the big gun contesters will agree with me...that is a situation that would be better served by electronic means. but it comes down to the signature or manager stamp for awards and such. I accept eQsl for basic courtesy exchanges, and i send paper when i need one verified as you pointed out, but theres a certain enjoyment in getting a small paper card in the mailbox.
Also, take notice that paper logs are considered antiquated nowadays (i still use them for the same reason as the cards, but i digress), most major operations and contest stations use them, computer logging was pretty much non-existant 15 to 20 years ago.
It is my opinion that we are literally running the earth dry, hopefully more folks will realize that resources dont last forever and we are quite frankly running out of them...it will bite us in the hinder. But finding alternatives to petroleum is a pressing issue, regulating factory and automotive emissions is imperative since deregulation post-2000, im with you...but little things like cards only serve to make ones self feel better as opposed to really making an impact. recycling, not dumping used oil down the gutter, etc...all great ideas. but unless you can design and present a viable alternative to the paper qsl that can be written on, signed and sent, most will continue to use cardboard...but if you have any ideas, ill be more than happy to try it.
By the way, i make my own cards, and i print them on 100% recycled cardstock, its works just as well. Thank you for sounding off on this though.
73...Adam, N7YA
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N6KYS on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You've GOT to be kidding. QSL cards killing the environment? This has to be THE dumbest topic I've seen here yet.
Brad
N6KYS
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by NY0K on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I use eQSL, and when I get a new DX or an interesting eQSL, I get copies mailed to me. I enjoy the QSLs, and my kids and I can use them as teaching tools for geography. While I appreciate the environmental angle, and could see that using more environmentally-friendly cards would be better, I don't think many hams would agree with your conclusions, particularly when it's such a fun tradition that can be educational.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W2RDD on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gerry, I share your concerns for the environment and I believe your heart is in the right place.
I don't think QSL exchanging is a major contributor. Post cards sent from your favorite resort to the folks back home, either. The Post Office has become envirnmental by constantly hiking the price of a stamp. How many post cards or personal letters are received these days? How many do you send? I believe those counts are down. Of course the fact that fewer people want to pick up a pen and paper and write a note or letter is a contributing factor.
I would go after the packaging industry, especially the food packaging industry, if I were looking for a cause. Check out the waste of paper and plastic the next time you or the wife come back from the supermarket. Or the waste of paper at the office. How many photocopies of a document are really necessary?
Go ahead and send that QSL to the ham who you had a really pleasant conversation with. Doesn't have to be every routine contact.
73
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W2RDD on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By the way, Gerry. Keep in mind that electronic QSLs, if wanted, are printed on heavy paper stock on your home computer system. So "paper" use is still a factor. In fact, now that I think about it, electronic QSLs may be generating more "waste" as they are so easy to spit out.
I am guilty on all counts.
73 from the Mohawk Valley.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N3AIU on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gerry:
I agree with the other posters that QSLs do not contribute seriously to environmental damage (deforestation, wasting oil, greenhouse emissions from delivery trucks and airplanes, etc.). It seems that you are looking for an excuse for everyone to switch exclusively to eQSL or LOTW. These are already fine programs that do not need additional help.
If you really want to help the environment "through the mail", perhaps you should start a movement to help reduce the unsolicited bulk mailing crap that clogs our mailboxes. How many trees have to give their lives for this random BS?
N6KYS: You could be more diplomatic. We're supposed to be hams with some class, not internet flamers.
73, Nick N3AIU/DL1NE
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by OZ8AAZ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Recycling paper can be harmful to the environment!
Yes, you actually read that :) At least, here in Scandinavia where we have had a lot of "wind timber" due to heavy storms the last 7-8 years it's more damaging to forests to use recycled paper than not.
A lot of the materials put in to paper production are "waste timber" (bark, branches and so on) that are cut from the trees when preparing the logs for production into furniture, house elements, kitchen tabletops and 1000's of other uses.
Of course, it's not black or white but there are more nuances to the whole "just use recycled paper!" thingy... and if you really want to do something for the environment then measure out how much power your rig, amp, pc, lights and what else you have in the schack might consume. Then go buy "green" power in that amount - nice'n'easy.
73, Kasper SM7/OZ8AAZ
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W9PMZ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I suppose that if QSL Cards are a consideration for enviromental impact; then I guess we need to shut all of our radios down so that we don't pollute via energy conversion process.......
(or is this a way just to get more people to use the internet???)
73,
Carl - W9PMZ
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N9TA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Okay....I'm gonna post a reply to this issue....as soon as I stop laughing. GOD help us !!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W4LGH on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
2 words... TREE HUGGERS!
This earth of ours has a finite amount of resourses in which we has humans need to survive. Has the population increases, these resourses will deminish at a faster rate, until there are no more. At that time the earth will die, and start its process of rejuvination, and a new rebirth of life. I truely believe this cycle has been repeated on this planet many times already. If you really sit back and think about it, it makes a lot of sence. You can feed a family of 4 with a 15lb turkey several times, but a family of 14 only once. Everything on this planet lives off something else.
Now get on the air and start talking before the sky starts falling!!
73 de W4LGH - Alan
http://www.w4lgh.com
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB9CRY on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I fail to believe there is not a solution for both attractive cards and environmental concerns. I
Good of you to be so concerned but the number of trees lost due to QSL cards is very small relative to the carbon emissions you've sent into the atmosphere from the power plant that generated the electricity to run your rigs and computer used to send your article.
There are bigger fish to fry here.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K7SU on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I get more paper in JUNK MAIL every DAY than I do in QSL cards in a YEAR. If you wanna go down this road, maybe we should stop JUNK MAIL first. QSL cards would be down the line quite a bit.
You need to get on the air more and loosen up a bit!
73
Kelly
www.K7SU.com
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N1GXC on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!! I do not litter. I recycle anything I can and I have never kicked a puppy. BUT, this 'green' poopola is getting out of hand. QSL cards? Ive heard it all now...
Dan WZ1P
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by LX1LH on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think this article does not cover the complete lifecycle of a QSL card. Any eQSL card needs a technical infrastructure and electricity behind with backup on tape, modernisation of hard- and software - OR our print the eQSL card out and store it traditionally.
If you take all the cost for a paper based QSL with transport and storage cost over let's say 30 years against the electronic approach including an environmental approach (paperneed vs. production of CO2 for electricity) the electronic approach will be definitely the looser.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W9OY on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You want to save the environment? Shoot yourself in the head.
73 W9OY
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gerry, your heart may be in the right place, but stop and think about this. QSL cards have been and are an item that many of us keep a long time. they are a part of the tradition of ham radio, a part some hams want to keep up. I have a few, but a club I belong to has a wall of the club shack covered with them--8 feet high by at least 12 feet long. Some of those go back to the 40s and 50s.
The use of paper for those cards is miniscule compared to the uses some places have for them--I get a stack of paper at my various addresses, both personal and business, that I didn't ask for and I don't want--all of it junk mail. Real wasted paper.
I believe your efforts would be better spent telling those businesses that send you the junk that you rather not receive it than telling your fellow hams we shouldn't be sending QSL cards. Of course, that is just my opinion, others may disagree.
One last thing, don't be afraid of telling the ham on the other end of your contact that you don't need a QSL card if you don't intend to send one to them. That right there will save some paper and will let the other person know not to expect one from you.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by NN4RH on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you're that concerned about the environment, you should unplug your radio. You realize that to manufacture that radio involves using up precious energy and precious natural resources? The manufacturers have to use toxic chemicals to make the components. Diesel fuel is used by the trucks that delivered it. Not to mention that to power the radio requires burning of fossil fuels or nuclear energy and the environmental hazards associated with that. And the QSL cards on top of all that. Ham Radio is Destroying the Planet!
Save the Earth! Save the Whales! Turn off your radios! Dont buy any more radios!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by ARRLBOOSTER on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Gerry, you are a fool. The saddest thing about this pathetic post is that the author is serious....
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AA4PB on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
With the advent of the Internet, electrons are being used at an alarming rate! The constant movement of these electrons around the World is causing global warming that will end up causing the destruction of us all. We have Al Gore to thank for it.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by NI0C on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've been a member of the Sierra Club for many years, and share your concern for the environment. However. in the scheme of things, amateur radio operators exchanging QSL cards has to be way down on the list of significant environmental impacts.
I'd suggest doing the following experiment. Check your postal mail for a week, and calculate the ratio of junk mail (unsolicited mail that will go straight to the trash-- and that may include fundraising appeals by your favorite environmental organizations) to the mail that actually serves some purpose-- such as your bank statements, bills, and QSL cards. In my case, I estimate the ratio by volume to be about twenty to one.
If you really want to make an impact on the problem of paper mail, I'd suggest lobbying for increased postage rates for unsolicited advertising.
73,
Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KX8N on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Well, I suppose that if QSL Cards are a consideration for enviromental impact; then I guess we need to shut all of our radios down so that we don't pollute via energy conversion process....... "
On a serious note, if you figure not only the electricity used by your own computer and the computer of the ham sending the electronic QSL, but also the electricity used by ALL the computers in between making up the internet that delivers those QSL's, that's actually a pretty large amount of electricity. It's far more environmentally-friendly just to send the paper card to begin with.
In fact, it's probably more environmentally friendly to send a paper QSL than it was to make the original post to begin with. By just using the internet, the original poster supports a system (the internet) that uses huge amounts of electricity AND a huge amount of non-recyclable waste (the computer parts that cannot be reused and end up in landfills).
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K0PD on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I do not know what is more funny,the comment's or the writer of such nonsense. Anyone want to try and blame something Ham's do on Global Warming??
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N4CQR on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, after thinking about this a bit, it appears to me that sending, receiving and storing QSL cards the triditional way is probably the most environmentally friendly.
It may be like the girl who drove from Ohio to California to participate in a protest about the excessive use of gasoline in the US.....
Her heart was in the right place but her head elsewhere.
Craig
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WB4TJH on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
QSL cards "hurting" the environment?...this has got to be the biggest train load of bull poop I have ever read on this web site. Total Bravo Sierra. Nonsense.Laughable. The statement of a brainwashed idiot.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K4BKD on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All I can say is "UNBELIEVABLE!!!!" Just think about all the copper we hams are wasting by putting up wire antennas and the raw elements(steel, aluminum)for towers. Shame on us !!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KF4HR on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Perhaps you should consider steering your time and effort towards the development of an electric car that:
* can travel at highway speeds for 250+ miles on a single charge,
* provides a lifespan similar to a typical gas car,
* is priced to where every average Joe can afford it,
-> THEN you'll be making an environmental impact!
(Please tell us you don't have a website that promotes eQSL's..., and at a great price! :^()
KF4HR
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K0BG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The biggest users of pulp products are the newspapers we all read. Most of them are NOT recycled, contrary to popular belief. Adding insult, we can't grow (legally) the one crop which can produce several magnitudes more pulp product per acre than trees; Cannabis sativa.
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
| |
|
This is not a serious issue.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1WIG is either posting this tongue in cheek, or he is an earth worshipper.
I keep a paper log of all my contacts, and I make it a point to send genuine paper QSL cards of the hightest quality. If I were to become the only ham left doing so, I will continue to do exactly that.
On a rainy day I enjoy sitting in my favorite chair looking through my logs and spreading my QSL cards out on a table before me.
We are not the resource hogs. If the likes of Al Gore, the Clintons, and all of their Hollywood pals were to live like middle class (a vanishing group) citizens, you would see some real conservation of resources.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W3WN on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hah!
OK... if you are really serious about the environmental impact of QSL cards...
Paper comes from trees.
Trees are a long-term renewable resource.
Go plant some trees.
Oh, and give them a hug or two while you're at it. Sing to them. (Isn't "Kumbaya" appropriate?) Nurture them. That way, when the chainsaws come out to chop them into bits, they'll be completely unprepared for the carnage.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K4RAF on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If paper QSLs are bad for the environment, does my tin foil hat make me look fat?
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KC8FRJ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I subscribe to being a good steward of our land and environment.
Yet I find the majority of people calling themselves environmentalists well intentioned but somewhat misguided.
Wood’s chemical composition is %51 carbon, %42 oxygen. Instead of burning coal to view things electronically, you would think growing and burying as much wood as possible would be more prudent. I never did understand those silly hot air hand dryers, burning pounds of coal to save ounces of paper.
But that would assume that we have a Carbon problem, a situation I find dubious. The measurements at Mauna Loa show a 62 parts per million increases since 1958. CO2 is not the Earth’s major green house gas/medium, never was.
Now postage costs are another matter all together! :-)
Best regards,
Chris
KC8FRJ
References:
http://www.bioheat.info/pdf/kpn_wood_fuels_at.pdf
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WQ3T on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Anyone who has worked me has received a paper QSL card. There is something about the way a physical document provides concrete evidence the magic of radio really works. Every time I hear my callsign as a series of beeps on my radio, I am amazed at how someone far away can actually copy my radio signal. I still copy notes of my QSOs on those Gregg ruled shorthand tablets. I have saved every QSL card and QSO notes for posterity and future review. The paper I use to copy my QSOs adds up to way more paper than QSL cards. Perhaps head or mill copy can save paper, but I keep writing it down. This is from a guy who types on a computer for a living. Perhaps one day when the ozone depletes the ionosphere, people will look at old QSL cards and wonder how radio waves interacted with nature to connect mankind together in ham radio comraderie.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W9JCM on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
First off this is way way out there. I print mine on some good printer stock and will always continue to do so. Secondly this is liberal environmental type garbage. There are so many other things people can do to actually effect the environment. This is a ham forum though lets keep to the topic or lack of. Anyone still use 2 meter or 6 meter AM anymore? I see a lot of old rigs out there going cheap. I love 160/80M AM maybe there is revival happening? :-) Enjoy Boys
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K2RNY on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gerry,
While I am usually a reader of these posts and a rare commentator, I just had to chime in here. The enjoyment my children and wife receive everytime I get my envelope from a distant land confirming a contact I've had FAR outweighs any percieved environmental impact and is worth every greenstamp and IRC I spend.
We recycle anything we can put in the bin. Our donations of used items increases every year. My wife's participation in the Free Cycle program is approaching legendary status.
Enough said.
73 de K2RNY
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
They are a waste. I have cards that I print myself on the rare occasions when needed. Otherwise, all eQSL.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KU4IS on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think the lead and other toxic contents in the electronics of our radios and computers causes a lot more environmental impact than using the renewable resource of paper. To minimize the impact of junk electronics, I recycle at home. I fix up old electronics and find a way to continue using them. I use QRP so I can easily provide my own power source for my equipment. Even my computer uses less than 25 watts.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N8UZE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Check out this site:
http://www.tappi.org/paperu/all_about_paper/earth_answers/earthAnswers.htm
Using wood to make paper is not an issue.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by NE4EB on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You are kidding, right? I spit out a mouthfull of coffee all over my monitor when the article caught me off guard. Get a life.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"They are a waste."
Vintage Chip. He's baaaaaackkkk!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AK2B on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As the president of BADMA (Babies Against Drunken Mothers) and recording secretary of FFAT (Freedom for Frogs And Toads) I say it’s time we band together and crawl (or hop) to Washington.
If your house is burning do you run back in to turn off the TV? Aren’t we being just a little tooo PC?
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA2DTW on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have kept every single QSL card that I received since 1959. They are quite valued. Although electronic QSL's are OK, they are no substitute for the real thing.
73
Steve WA2DTW
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by ICR71A on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Obviously, the author of this opinion piece lives in a place where he receives no mail from the post office. Approximately 110 million pieces of junk (bulk) mail is processed by the USPS every month. I think that we have little to worry about with QSL cards...
The real waste of energy and resources is the fact that all of us have spent time reading this drivel and then responding to it...
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N5UV on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As someone that works in direct mail marketing, I can say without a doubt that the elimination of paper QSL sending would be a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the daily deluge of "junk" mail that is sent out every day. While this type of thinking might work for the individual, to suggest this amongst a group of radio operators is kinda pointless and dumb.
Not only that, but the veiled suggestions of using LOTW and eQSL clearly show the writers bias on that particular subject...one that I've already commented on many times before, being the avid paper QSL collector that I am.
You would be better off explaining on this forum how to help reduce the amount of junk mail reaching your mailbox, rather that waste it trying to convince hams not to send their tiny little postcards (many of which are printed on recycled paper, I might add). In fact, go contact the Direct Marketing Association's website, or type up this URL:
https://www.dmaconsumers.org/onlineform.php
For the cost of $1, you can get your name added to the Mail Preference Service (or MPS), which is a national database of residential addresses of people who have requested NOT to receive unsolicited junk mail of any kind. All of the reputable mailers in the U.S. pass their mailing lists against this database to purge out those MPS names. Direct marketers do this because they operate on slim margins, and they definitely don't want to send any advertising mail pieces to people who specifically don't want to receive such mail. By doing this, you are not only saving them money (that's their reason for doing it), you are also helping save the environment. And don't laugh this off...this file is hugh, and national mailers save tens of thousands of wasted mailpieces by purging out these MPS names.
There...you want to save the world? Then pay the $1 fee to get LESS junk mail sent to you. Again, this won't catch every mailer, particularly small local ones...but it will keep you from getting that umpteenth credit card offer from Chase or Discovery. Signing up on MPS will do more good than convincing a bunch of hams to quit mailing QSL cards, because that's a losing proposition.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N4LI on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We Hams are a pathetic bunch. We chop down trees to make our QSLs, and encourage folks in Third World countries to mail them, increasing our overall carbon footprint as countless mail trucks and planes carry these cards to us greedy First-Worlders.
But, it doesn’t stop there. How many of us consider our RF POLLUTION? That’s right; every time we transmit, we pollute the environment with our RF, that courses through the bodies of the unsuspecting -- including the homeless, the downtrodden, and even Canadians. Sure, maybe one QRP op on 20m has little impact, but add ham after ham, and soon, we are all living in a real RF bath.
WiFi networks ill effects are already under the microscope. You think I’m kidding? Read this, or one like it: http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1262990,00.html
Soon, our own “RF footprints” will become known. How dare we?! I make me sick (or is it that recycled tree bark I had for breakfast?)!
Peter, N4LI
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KD6NIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey, you know, maybe they should make bidets standard in the US bathrooms. The amount of TP we all use every day probably exceeds the amount of QSL paper consumption.
And heck, after a bean burrito, I'm sure I produce enough noxious greenhouse gasses that pretty soon the State of California is going to label me as a gross polluter and require the installation of a catalytic converter!
And if QSL's are really that big of a problem, then its time to switch off the radio and just use IM. Why not, all of us on the site already are anyway, kinda...
Cue Ess Ell?
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W0FM on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And, regarding the cost of a paper QSL exchange, I have said here before, and still maintain, that the cost of printing and mailing paper QSL cards today is the same PERCENTAGE of the overall cost of our hobby that it was when I was first licensed in 1962.
Sorry Gerry. I'd vote for the guy who said "lobby for higher postage rates for unsolicited mail"! THAT will impact the environment.
73,
Terry, WØFM
|
| |
|
ENVIORNMANTAL WACKOS ATTACK QSL CARDS!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, OK, OK.....
So 3 X 5" QSL cards are destroying the world? GIVE ME A BREAK!
If you attack the humble 3 X 5" QSL card as consuming resources and destroying the enviornment, you had better take a look at how much "enviornmental" impact YOUR OWN hamming has.
DID YOU KNOW:
1) YOUR HAMSHACK consumes energy produced from the burning of fossil fuels.
If you "re-thought" your hamming, fewer fossil fuels would be burned, less greenhouse gasses would be released and the world would not be warming at a rate of 1 DEGREE EVERY HUNDRED YEARS!
2) By composing YOUR ARTICLE on a computer that consumed electricity (produced from burning fossil fuels) YOU contributed to the consumption of non-renewable resources AND the emission of greenhouse gasses. YOU have contributed to destruction of the enviornment AND global warming!
3) The box YOUR RADIO came in was made from cardboard!
which, in turn came from trees, which had to be cut down, thereby destroying our precious enviornment!
4) YOUR RADIOS & coax were produced using toxic chemicals. Those chemicals were released into the water and air....shame on YOU for contributing to the death and poor health of children in under-developed countries! That copper in yor coax could be used by children in under-developed countries to attend school over Al Gore's internet!
5) Your RF emissions cause inozation of the ozone layer, causing it to thin.
EVERYBODY knows that thinning of the ozone layer increases the CANCER CAUSING UV rays reaching the earth's surface. YOUR HAMMING is causing cancer IN CHILDREN as they play!
I am allways amazed how actions of so-called enviornmentalists are some how "immune" from destroying the enviornment, while those of us that collect little 3 X 5 QLS cards are destroying the planet. Al Gore can fly all over the world, (buring 58,000 pounds of fuel with each trip to the UN to sell his book) in a PRIVATE JET to give a CANNED SPEECH, which could be transmitted over the internet is not seen as a polluter, yet people that send 3 X 5" QSL cards are destroying the world.
Mabey its time to "re-think" the credibillity of so-called "enviornmentialists", not to mention their hokey, unscientific theories. Afterall, we now have a consensus, that so-called global warming is a greedy economic hoax, perpitrated by people seeking government grants and a Al Gore's FOR PROFIT carbon credit company!
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KI4ROV on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First the Code Test requirements. Now QSL cards????
What's going to be next? This is a true case of boredom on someone's part. Next article please!
|
| |
|
ENVIORNMANTAL WACKOS ATTACK QSL CARDS!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Did anyone notice that the author maintains a webpage?
Webpages run on servers that consume.... GASP... electricity! Yup, you guessed it, electricity produced from buring of fossel fuels. Fossel fuels, used to generate electricity for the author's webpage, contribute to greengouse gasses and global warming!
Mabey its time to "rethink" your website. Afterall, surely you don't want to be destroying the planet. please....do it for the children!
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N1ERF on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Corporate waste and consumption, vehicles with <30MPG
and all the products going to China cause more
environmental damage than paper QSL Cards. As a figure
of speech, it's like looking at a first year seedling
getting stepped on instead of seeing the millions of
acres getting burned down for pasture land - or getting
slashed to feed the Chinese industrial machine.
Just a thought.
/John
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So far I have received about the the type of responses I expected. Very few got past "chopping down trees". They never got to shipping, volunteers driving to sorting locations... Read below before flaming too fast ;)
So far I only saw one post re costs. Claiming they are the same over time adjusted for inflation clearly has never considered any ham might like to exchange QSL cards but happens to have been on a fixed income for a couple decades. Postal rates sure can discourage young hams from sending domestic or individual QSL cards. Are only DX cards via bureau of value??? I always liked domestic cards as well.
For those that say local printing costs more, that presumes one really wants EVERY card on their wall or stashed away. Heck, one can get photos commercially printed for 12-16 cents. Just email them to Walmart, Walgreens. My Kodak printer can spit out a photo for about 11.5 cents (total cost, independent review, not Kodak's data)
I also never stated it was a dominate environmental problem! Some hams believe in teaching, why not teach youngsters to enjoy their hobby AND conserve what is easy to to conserve? Why not teach transportation has costs? Why not get a way of receiving those desired personalized cards rapidly and securely?
I never comprehended why some consumption needed to achieve something desirable automatically justifies a lesser consumption that is not needed.
I fully suspect this is a mute topic, electronic means will replace shipping paper anyway. Banks do it, vendors do it...
It seems odd, if folks are so traditional why are they not using tube rigs with crystal controlled oscillators ;) Need to tweak the frequency? Open the crystal case and use a lead pencil. <G> How about those DX clusters? <VBG>
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N3JBH on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ok I can understand the concern for the environment here. And I totally applaud his thoughts and concern’s. Now the being said I wish all to consider how much toilet paper we all use. There is a waste if there ever was any. Want save trees and be good to Mother Nature. Then recycle natures own products. Next time you need to wipe just grab a fist full of leaves and wipe. Hey it is all natural and biodegradable so why not?
There is just nothing like a good old oak leaf for cleaning the old deposit box.:)
If you think this is goofy well so was rest of the idea’s that we shall save the world one qsl at a time.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N6KYS on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>In WA1WIG's first post....
"Certainly paper QSL cards transported around the world are the tradition. Perhaps it is time to rethink their value versus impact. We can chop down trees, build and maintain vehicles, burn petro-chemicals for processing and transportation and eventuaI fail to believe there is not a solution for both attractive cards and environmental concerns. Isn't it time to consider environmental costs as a separate issue? I think so."<<<<<<<
>>>>In WA1WIG's second post......"I also never stated it was a dominate environmental problem!"<<<<<<<<<
HUH????
Brad
N6KYS
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K0IZ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I for one like my QSL cards, and intend to continue to send them out. I'll use one less square of toilet paper per day.
Hard to related to some of our big-name environmentalists who have 10 cars, several big homes, travel around a bunch, and tell the rest of us to conserve. When they downsize to one big house, four cars, and travel coach, I'll start believing.
|
| |
|
The untold environmental damage from NO CODE!
|
|
|
by KF6IIU on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Much worse is the environmental damage from NO CODE REQUIREMENTS!
- Now more people can be hams. Think of all the damage as more and more ham gear must be produced to meet demand!
- Increased complexity of voice and digital modes: All the extra equipment puts more stress on our dwindling resources! The schematic diagrams are bigger, so more trees have to be cut down to print them!
- All that extra power you need for voice - think of the fossil fuels burned!
- All the new high tech gear just gets discarded when it gets old, instead of being traded forever among "collectors" at hamfests!
- How many hams can say they have an HT or computer their grandpappy used to own? Morse keys are handed down across generations, and never find their way into a landfill.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K1DA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Guy probably drives a Suburban..."needs the room".
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK! And while you're at it, why not eliminate all picture post cards from tourist attractions, outlaw personal correspondence that does not pertain to issues that you approve of and BEST OF ALL eliminate junk mail. GET REAL!!! How many QSL's does it take to equal ONE DAY'S junk mail in the US alone! My suggestion would be to identify REAL ISSUES and spend your time and energy dealing with those, NOT the narrow little focus that you've addressed in this "article" (probably to serve your own venue).
Tom
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W8VZM on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So what is next?
Michael moore will do a "Documentary" on how ham radio adds to global warming, air pollution, deforestation, the AIDS crisis, and what ever else he can throw in.
God help us all! Can't we talk about something that is important like what is for dinner?
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The creepy thing about QSL's is your family will chuck'em out when you're gone; they'll end up in some weirdo antique store as 'antique radio postcards'...and people will pay a buck apiece on EBAY.
Don't believe me? Ask your spouse what (s)he will do with your QSLs,and then do an EBAY search for QSL cards, or 'radio postcards'...
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W7NVQ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
When I die, I want my QSL cards to be buried with me in my "wooden" coffin. Hee hee hee....
|
| |
|
RE: ENVIORNMANTAL WACKOS ATTACK QSL CARDS!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why is it:
1) The very people that complain about over-consumption of fossel fuels consume the most? (Al Gore 58,000 pounds of gas for EACH flight to the UN)
2) The people that complain about mal-distrubution of wealth have the most? (Teddy Kennedy, heir to bootleg booze fortune)
3) The people that complain the most about excessive American consumption consume the most? (John Edwards & his 48,000 square foot home)
4) the people that complain the most about Large SUV's destroying the planet personally own them? (John Kerry & his Suburban)
WHY IS IT THAT PEOPLE CONTINUE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THESE NUTTY ARGUMENTS BY NUTTY ADVOCATES?
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N2RRA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1WIG,
I appreciate your concern, and have the same concern's is why I drive Hybrid, but I agree with other's that QSL card's are not to blame. If you want to bring up a solution to saving tree's, or enviorment start with stop buying paper towel's, and use wash cloth's instead of wiping your hands for a minute, and throwing it away is a waste.
Other Suggestion's!
Change all incandescent light bulb's to energy efficent one's.
Do we really need to read the newspaper when we all catch it on the blue tube or LCD's.
Can we push for all cloth's to be made of Hemp?
No more wooden ladder's.
No more wooden furniture.
The list can go on, but I ask you how many of these suggestion's have you acted upon?
I do not EQSL or LOTW, but I enjoy one of the few pleasure's I think I can live with If I've done my share of giving up other thing's.
73!
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WR8Y on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
THIS is what eHam considers to be an "article"?
Speechless. I am absolutely speechless.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KF4HR on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The creepy thing about QSL's is your family will chuck'em out when you're gone; they'll end up in some weirdo antique store as 'antique radio postcards'...and people will pay a buck apiece on EBAY."
On the bright side, my xyl will be able to recoup some of my Green Stamps! :^))
KF4HR
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by NT4XT on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I probably lean towards tree hugging more than tree killing. I am all for environmental friendliness.
I am also for electronic confirmation as a primary mode, in some cases augmented with a real touchable card that is tangible and personalized, preferably touched by the person I contacted if possible.
Or real touched by human hands QSL Cards as a primary if that is all there is in a specific case.
I sure appreciate the sentiment, while at the same time, I truly doubt the negative impact that traditional handled by humans SWL/Ham Radio QSL cards have on our environment. It's such an infinitesimally tiny fraction of paper product compared to the rest of paper product.
I think grocery stores, retail outlets, any business that receives card board product in mass, recycling the cardboard would have a larger impact on helping the environment.
Even law firms with all the shredded paper. I see actually shredding companies now days, they show up in a large covered truck to office buildings, and haul away the shredded paper, and stacks of less confidential wasted fax/copier prints, for recycling.
I think these larger scale operations help much more.
And also, on the whole, I think that even municipalities that have residential garbage/recycling of newspapers/phone books, make a difference, when it's literally tons and tons of material.
While with regard to QSL cards, using the Evironmentally Friendly, Gaia sort of perspective, feels rather petty, and I rather see old growth trees ALIVE not dead, and am all for preserving those, or if they must be removed, then planting an equivalent amount of CO2 converting foilage and habitat, near the killzone.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I never comprehended why some consumption needed to achieve something desirable automatically justifies a lesser consumption that is not needed."
"...needed to achieve something desirable..." WHO DECIDES THAT?
"...a lesser consumption that is not needed." ACCORDING TO WHOM?
WA1WIG, your mind is already made up about this and nothing anyone says will change it so don't go away mad, just go away. To put it another way, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to keep typing and remove all doubt.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K0VJ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.[1] They may also plant images and data on networks that others may find disturbing (usually indirectly relating to the individual in person) in order to cause confrontation.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The creepy thing about QSL's is your family will chuck'em out when you're gone...." W1YW
You cannot and even should not control what happens when you are gone. They will chuck you out when your gone, too!
The point is that life and ham radio is what you make it. If you enjoy QSL cards, then you keep them, look them over, collect them, maybe find a good home for them with someone else, but if you like them, the heck with anyone else. You only live once. Do the right things and get the most out of it along the way.
Ain't it peculiar how some people are very concerned about the costs when it comes to someone else's activities?
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Ain't it peculiar how some people are very concerned about the costs when it comes to someone else's activities?"
AMEN!!! The environmentalist's creed!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
""I never comprehended why some consumption needed to achieve something desirable automatically justifies a lesser consumption that is not needed."
WA1WIG, I guess, then, you're saying that JUNK MAIL is something desirable?
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by MM0RAG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just to stir the pot a little more....
You could argue that, so long as QSL cards are kept in their original form and not decomposed and, so long as a tree is planted to replace the one cut down to make QSL cards, then we are actually HELPING the environment by increasing the amount of Carbon locked up and not converted to Carbon Dioxide.
This does not take account of the costs in environmental terms of transporting QSL cards.
You could probably put up a good argument to say that the whole process is carbon neutral.
In any case there is strong evidence to show that the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere "followed" an increase in temperature. This suggests that the whole issue is debatable and could be simply a natural phenomenon.
We should hope that this is not true, because if it is, there is even less that we can do about it.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"In any case there is strong evidence to show that the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere "followed" an increase in temperature. This suggests that the whole issue is debatable and could be simply a natural phenomenon.
We should hope that this is not true, because if it is, there is even less that we can do about it"
EXACTLY!!!
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K3SUI on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry ... but this is the kind of lame thinking we see all to much today. How much of a dent in the mail would you think that could result from ALL hams, all over the world, stop sending QSL cards!! GET REAL, FELLOW!!! How about thinking of the folks who would be thrown out of work !!! ;o)
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by SFD301 on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I use them all, but personally I think the paper is the best QSL card one could receive. Way too many people concerned with the impact on the environment...heck, talk about global warming and some declare the end of the world is at hand, yet they can't explain why Greenland was once green and the world survived that!?!
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N4XY on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh give me a break. I wish I could deliver some intelligent, factual reply to this-but in all honesty it ranks right up there as one of the dumbest suggestions I have ever seen.
I suppose this means that if we have a QSO you will only send an e-qsl... so be it. You'll miss out on my already-printed gorgeous QSL containing a couple of my photographs of a butterfly & a bee. I guess you will be able to live with that.
Electronically, you can see it at: www.n4xy.com . But the card is prettier.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K6AER on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We have not considered the adverse effect of not printing and sending QSL cards. The environment has very little to do with the real world dangers. It is the economy stupid!
Think of the thousands of unemployed QSL managers, QSL printers, ink manufactures, paper manufactures, US Post Office personnel, printer manufactures, graphic artists, and let’s not forget the postal delivery person who desperately needs his job in order to pay for the much needed operation in order to save his little daughter life. How could you do that to his little girl?
Who cares about trees! Good grief man we are talking about lives here.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AD7GR on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is almost as good as reading Wizard of Id or Garfield Comics. Then again maybe not... comics make more sense.
Ed - AD7GR
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> I appreciate your concern, and have the same concern's is why I drive Hybrid, but I agree with other's that QSL card's are not to blame.
It is fascinating to me that few appear to have read the article in it's entirety. eHAM limits the title line length pretty strictly thus it couldn't be what I desired. Few responders seem to bother with the the rest of of the article.
From the responses, I would guess everybody bought they rig from their local hams store and would never use the internet for such. No? Maybe economics is why they no longer have a local ham shop. How much radio gear is at Radio Shack these days?
It's great that so many are affluent enough to send green stamps for their kid's contacts. Let the less affluent kid and lesser income hams be darned???
Ham technology moves on, why is only personally confirming contacts forbidden to participate in technical advances?
73, gerry
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA8MEA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I thought this was a "tongue in cheek" satire until I went to Gerald's website. I can pretty much imagine Gerald means what he says.
I would love to see Gerald's "carbon footprint" regarding his electric bill to operate those computers he uses to transport e-qsl cards!
BTW, you can go to any office supply chain and purchase recycled paper in card stock weight and make your own QSL cards. Here is my favorite card-making website:
http://www.radioqth.net/qsl.aspx
Gerald, I hope your son doesn't waste gasoline by driving an expensive, gas guzzling car at over 100 mph. I also hope you don't support "Save the Earth" concerts that eat up enough electricity to power a dozen low income apartments for a year or more!
Sincerely;
Bill - WA8MEA
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>I suppose this means that if we have a QSO you will only send an e-qsl
I'm good at QRZ, clearly state there I will gladly send a physical card. I also believe in technical advances an any aspect of amateur radio.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You cannot and even should not control what happens when you are gone. They will chuck you out when your gone, too!
I assume you are naive on this matter...
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> I believe your efforts would be better spent telling those businesses that send you the junk that you rather not receive it than telling your fellow hams we shouldn't be sending QSL cards. Of course, that is just my opinion, others may disagree.
AND the many other similar posts...
Interesting, why do you assume I haven't? Why is junk mail an amateur radio issue?
Maybe someone will get out of temper and address the several issues mentioned.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W7ETA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well.
Certainly no reason why anyone can not skip using paper QSLs.
Suggesting, or asking others to do the same, without some measure of the impact of using electronic vrs paper, uuummmmmm? Not convincing.
73
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W0FM on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
from WA1WIG:
<"So far I only saw one post re costs. Claiming they are the same over time adjusted for inflation clearly has never considered any ham might like to exchange QSL cards but happens to have been on a fixed income for a couple decades. Postal rates sure can discourage young hams from sending domestic or individual QSL cards.">
I'm pretty sure that it was my post you referred to here, Gerry. When I was first licensed at age 15, I was not on FIXED income, I was on NO income (I guess that also could be considered "fixed").
After cobbling together a station and wire antenna, my next order of business was having my QSL cards printed. And I QSL'd 100% back then using birthday money and pocket change.
45 years later, I still receive an occasional QSL card that some young ham drew by hand on an index card. They're keepers too!
Where there's a will......
Terry, WØFM
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA4PTZ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I didn't know that Al Gore had a long lost twin.
Maybe he should stay lost. Find a new soapbox bud.
Or perhaps a new hobby.
WA4PTZ
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> You could argue that, so long as QSL cards are kept in their original form and not decomposed and, so long as a tree is planted to replace the one cut down to make QSL cards, then we are actually HELPING the environment by increasing the amount of Carbon locked up and not converted to Carbon Dioxide.
As a fun diversion from this thread, disposable diapers are also CO2 negative!
It only takes a decade or so to crop the trees, it takes a diaper about 150 years to decompose in a typical landfill.
I can see the humor in so many in this forum thinking I'm full of the same stuff the used diapers are ;)
Life is too short not to have some fun, (This post, not the main article)
73, gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
We now have a "consensus". The issue is no longer debateable. The article is just silly.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W8KQE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Most human beings are too greedy, selfish, ignorant, and set in their ways to stop harming the environment (myself and YOU included to some extent, i'm sure). The only way to put a check on all this destructiveness for 'finite resources' is population control. Our planet is finite in size and resources, and our world population keeps growing exponentially, thus increasingly taxing the environment. "You can only crowd so many people into a Volkswagen"... ditto our Earth. I fear the day when governments, or large corporations, will spread death via a lab bio-engineered pathogen, or the like, in order to regain control of the masses and/or the Earth and our resources. Or when they tell us we can only have one child, or none at all! Then again, as there have presumably been many 'mass extinctions' over the billions of years of history here, we may have already set the wheels in motion bigtime for yet another one, with irreversible consequences! So the paper QSL'ing is just one small action among many that could be contributing to the degradation of our environment, frankly. In any case, I don't have much faith in the human race anyway.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N6OW on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh Hummmmmm. There is more tree and energy in Sunday's newspaper than in all the QSL cards most of us will ever receive.
Dave
N6OW
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Gerry, your heart may be in the right place, but stop and think about this. QSL cards have been and are an item that many of us keep a long time. they are a part of the tradition of ham radio, a part some hams want to keep up.
Folks use resources (natural and financial)for many pleasures. Other's may not have the financial resources to send green stamps or even a high volume of domestic QSLs.
As one example, think about special event stations, they absolutely need a SASE to cover costs. An authenticated electronic QSL printed by or at the expense of the receiver would cost them virtually nothing.
The end product, would be just as attractive and as the computer filled out card sent back to you in your SASE.
73, gerry
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KK9H on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The title of the previous article listed also applies this one, "Bah Humbug!"
|
| |
|
Excessive use of heat and air conditioning
|
|
|
by AG4DG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Climate control systems (heating and air conditioning) use more energy than anything else in the home. This is the 800-pound gorilla of energy use. I'm surprised you don't see everyone clamping down on this at a time of high energy and electricity prices.
Remember that you're supposed to wear a sweater in winter, NOT in summer. Turn the thermostat up to 80 degrees during air conditioning season. In the fall, turn the thermostat down to the mid/upper 60s and gradually lower it to the lower 60s and upper 50s.
|
| |
|
RE: ENVIORNMANTAL WACKOS ATTACK QSL CARDS!
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>3) The box YOUR RADIO came in was made from cardboard!
which, in turn came from trees, which had to be cut down, thereby destroying our precious enviornment!
Gee, my radio box was consumed by worms and is now fertilizing my garden ;)
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by VE3LXL on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You've GOT to be kidding. QSL cards killing the environment? This has to be THE dumbest topic I've seen here yet."
I agree. The only thing dumber than this topic is the fact that so many guys think it deserves a serious reply.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> By the way, Gerry. Keep in mind that electronic QSLs, if wanted, are printed on heavy paper stock on your home computer system. So "paper" use is still a factor.
The operative word is "wanted". Only the ones the receiver values enough to print use paper. Very little other incremental resources are consumed, including financial.
This was never intended as "death to tradition", rather use technology where it makes sense.
gerry
|
| |
|
RE: ENVIORNMANTAL WACKOS ATTACK QSL CARDS!
|
|
|
by W7ETA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thats what I do in the winter. Turn the temp down to low 50s.
Then I turn on my TR4s, C-lines, Tempo One, Sb220, Henry 2K, and Alpha single 8877 and use their free heat to bring the temps back to comfortable again.
Bob
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W8JAS on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This stuff gives me a good laugh. QSL cards bad for the environment. Oh my gosh, who is smoking what and did they buy it from Gore's druggie kid?
If anything, tube rigs are damaging the environment. They suck up way too much electricity than solid state rigs. And then a lot of that energy is wasted through heat.
While you're at trying to save the world, get Al Gore to sell that monster energy wasting mansion he lives in. Better yet, Gore should just tear it down. All he really needs is a 3,000 sq. ft. house for the two of them not something ten times as big. Now that is a waste.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AC7DX on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What a joke. If you really want to help the environment, use your finger instead of TP :-)
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N5IVZ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
YOU HAVE got to be kidding?? next, topic please..maybe GLOBAL WARMING from the heat generated by my 5 watt QRP RIG!!
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W4CX on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You have GOT to be kidding, OM!
Why don't you just get out of HR altogether and help conserve the spectrum, too!
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KQ9J on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just got the mail today and there was a card from a station I worked in Senegal. Put it in the plastic holder that hangs on my shack wall. Looks really nice there. Most of the real ones look much better than any of the eQSL cards I have printed out.
Up here in Northern Wisconsin, if it weren't for paper production and timber harvesting this town would die.
I am happy to keep my logger and paper mill worker neighbors in jobs by using all the paper I can.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by ONAIR on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Didn't ANYONE on here get the message from Al Gore, the future President of the United States?
|
| |
|
RE: ENVIORNMANTAL WACKOS ATTACK QSL CARDS!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How come you so-called "enviornmentalists" don't turn on the New York Times?
With a SINGLE Sunday paper printing, the NYT uses more paper (and thereby kill more trees) then all the QSL cards exchanged by all US hams in a whole year.
But will you criticize the NYT?
Never happen.
|
| |
|
RE: ENVIORNMANTAL WACKOS ATTACK QSL CARDS!
|
|
|
by AA9YA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
More left-wing lunacy.
Barking moon bats are everywhere!!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I am happy to keep my logger and paper mill worker neighbors in jobs by using all the paper I can."
The "other side of the coin" and just as dumb. Aren't there ANY hams in the world with a BALANCED point of view? Geeesh!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I agree. The only thing dumber than this topic is the fact that so many guys think it deserves a serious reply"
You're right! I, for one, am outta here. Can't say it hasn't been fun, 'cause it hasn't.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The only way to put a check on all this destructiveness for 'finite resources' is population control."
Are you volunteering?
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by G0GQK on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Its the new religion ! We are told we have to be aware of out toxic footprints, heat pollution, light pollution, global warming and so on.There have been huge global footprints from the forest fires which rage in CA, Brazil, and Indonesia every year, and mine in comparison is extremely small. The new religion says we must use energy saving bulbs at 10 times the cost, to save electricity production, while the big corporations burn energy from a million fluorescent tubes in 50 story office blocks all night long! Bah !!
G0GQK
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"In any case, I don't have much faith in the human race anyway."
Know what you mean. I'm developing the same attitude since moving to the greater Cleveland area. Is there something in the water?
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> The "other side of the coin" and just as dumb. Aren't there ANY hams in the world with a BALANCED point of view? Geeesh!
That was my hope. In this world one can't get any interest without a headline that gets attention.
It's pretty clear few posters got past the headline. Either that or they are so affluent persons of lesser means don't deserve QSLs.
My intent was never to mandate, rather to provoke thought. It appears I failed in that goal.
gerry
|
| |
|
QSL Cards - Graphic Art, valued autographs, care.
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
QSL cards are wonderful and often highly creative elements of the graphic arts. Sometimes the messages on them relate a particular accomplishment, a cherished autograph, or a heartfelt sentiment. They have a history parallel to that of radio communications. They are at one and the same time very general and very personal representatives of amateur radio and even Short Wave Listening. Those who don't appreciate them live in a duller world than those who do. It's their choice, but there is no valid reason why we who do should give up QSL cards, least of all for the poor excuse of environmental conservation.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N8UZE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Seems like NOBODY has bothered to check the link I posted. Paper is made primarily from "leftovers" from the lumber industry, etc or from very fast growing trees that are grown specifically for paper. They aren't going out and cutting down old growth woods, etc. Wood for paper is a non-issue.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N0FPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This has got to be one of the dumbest topics I have ever read on eHam...Someone has WAY to much time on their hands...
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Seems like NOBODY has bothered to check the link I posted. Paper is made primarily from "leftovers" from the lumber industry, etc or from very fast growing trees that are grown specifically for paper.
I specifically mentioned cropped wood in an earlier post. At least somebody is also aware of it.
Folks seem to be focusing on cutting trees, a very minor to non-existent issue.
73, gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards - Graphic Art, valued autographs, ca
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> but there is no valid reason why we who do should give up QSL cards, least of all for the poor excuse of environmental conservation.
Who proposed giving QSL cards up or their individual creative personal content?
73, gerry
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KD5RGJ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I BELIEVE THIS GUY HAS BEEN SHREDDING HIS PAPER QSLs AND SMOKING THEM
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W2HA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Please tell me this guy is trolling, please. This is right up there with Shrill Crow's suggestion that we use only one square of TP per crap. Although I hate Rosie O'Donnell, her response "Have you seen MY ass?" was perfect.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N3EG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree that QSL cards are ruining the environment - but that's not all. Tube radios are responsible for causing global warming, our ozone layer is depleted by bombardment from radio waves during DX contest, and HF mobile antennas on vehicles waste gasoline by reducing aerodynamic efficiency 0.01%!
Hopefully this incredible waste of our resources is just slightly offset by the amount of electronic trash we rescue from landfills. Some of it even winds up at hamfests and on Ebay, putting a few pennies back into our economy. We also save a miniscule amount of government resources by helping with public safety communications in emergencies, and have pioneered one or two technological advances and helped a handful of people prepare for careers in electronics.
Also, apologies to the FCC for dumping the sole responsibility of enforcement on them.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W4LGH on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well thats it! I am finally gonna sell off all my ham gear and go buy that metal detector! Been threatining
to do that for 30+ years. All that energy wasted, rf polution, and now wasted trees on QSL card. Ham radio is a BAD hobby, and I see the light now!
Edith, I'm coming darling...this is the big one!
I must , I repeat, I must change my evil ways! (as I am firing up my shack and 2 linear amps)
CQ DX QSL 100% 73 de W4LGH - Alan SK SK SK
http://www.w4lgh.com
Please note: No animals or trees were hurt or distroyed in this posting.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1WIG, Gerry, you started this thread with your post, but once started, all sorts of opinions and ideas have been added. Responses on this thread are not limited to your original post, but often come as responses to other comments. Sometimes objectivity and sticking to the original ideas in the article are useful, but more often than not, the tread weaves in and out, here and there, and goes its own way.
So, Gerry, don't feel that every comment is addressing your orignal purpose. It might or might not have been more interesting, but at least, you wound it up and turned it lose for better or for worse. - Ray Mullin, AI2IA
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W8JAS on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I dunno if he is too nuts. According to his webpage he is on disability. Now it also says he enjoys camping. How can you be so disabled that you cannot work, but still be in fine physical shape to go camping? He knows how to work the system so he cannot be too nuts.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ray,
>>>So, Gerry, don't feel that every comment is addressing your orignal purpose...
I fully expected to hit a nerve as many of the posts we have seen showed. I failed at getting at least a few folks to think a bit regarding the original intent. (environment AND economic)
If not well expressed in my original article, I actually hoped to stir a conversation finding a way to actually increase QSLs! It seems a diminishing practice and I expect that will continue down that path. I also truly believe it is cost prohibitive to many and technology could renew this treasured practice.
Given technology, it does appear an environmental waste to me. I have received electronic QSL's that have all the originality and personalization of any physical card.
I am dumbfounded why hams have abandoned straight keys, use DSPs instead of training ears yet are so adverse to using technology to increase personalized QSL rates.
73, gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> How can you be so disabled that you cannot work, but still be in fine physical shape to go camping?
Such a wonderful demonstration of the ignorance of some in this hobby :(
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W1YW on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This guy probably drives a hummer... 'Nuf said.
---------------------------------
Well, I drive a Caddy SRX so I can tell you my perspective is not one of those pseudoscientific- mother earth is cryin--rants.
I just think it's a waste of living SPACE. Not a waste of TREES!
PETA: "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals". Enjoy one today!
73,
Chip W1YW
"Reverse the Ice Age--Put the AC on high!"
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB4QAA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually QSL cards are helpful to the environment and the fight against global warming for one reason: Carbon Sequestration.
Every QSL card held by a ham is carbon taken from the atmosphere and not released back into it by burning. We should encourage every ham to create, send and most importantly HOLD QSL cards for as long as possible.
QQQ, Bill
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AC7ZL on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gerry:
Every minute, in thousands of McDonalds around the world, somebody opens a Quarter Pounder (TM) box or a cheeseburger wrapper and then consumes the food. Wrapper after box after cup after wrapper...containers whose life can be measured in minutes, and which accumulate in landfills by the hundreds or even thousands of tons every year.
Every day, it seems, I receive a half pound of unsolicited mail...full-color multi-page brochures, flyers and envelopes hawking things I didn't ask for, don't want, and will never buy. Time from the mail box to my trash: 45 seconds to 1 minute. Multiply that by every house on the street, times the number of cities in the state, times the number of states, and again, you are are talking about thousands of tons of wasted paper.
Every time I get a statement from my credit card, the bill comes with enough advertisement (for junk) to double the amount of paper otherwise needed. Multiply that volume of waste by however many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people that have credit cards. The result: Tons of waste.
Let's not forget the absurd amount of packaging associated with anything you buy these days. Many low-end disposable products cost little more to manufacture-- and use little more material--- than the packing material that they will be sold in. It's like buying a watermelon, cutting it in two, and then always throwing half of it away. Total lifetime of the packaging material...depends....how long does it take for you to get from the store to your home? Once again...thousands of tons of paper, (or plastic--- the latter produced by non-renewable resources.)
How about Hallmark (TM) greeting cards....millions of cards for real holidays like Christmas or Easter...and millions more for all of the made-up holidays. I suppose there are a few sentimental people who keep the cards given to them, but the rest...most...throw them away when the holiday has passed. Total product lifetime: 1 to 2 weeks, after which the cards accumulate in landfills.
Now let's look at QSL cards. First, if we measured the tonnage of paper used for QSL cards vs paper used for everything else, the number would be so small as to be zero...unless you calculated the ratio out to some infinitesimal fraction. For practical purchases...NO paper is used.
And the QSL card's lifetime? Well, the oldest card I have is 3 years old...the length of time I've had my license. I will probably have those cards, and those I continue to accumulate, until I die. So, even if these cards are discarded upon my death, the life of my QSL cards will be measured in decades, at least. That's many times longer, BTW, than most "durable" goods will last, like cars, washing machines, or furniture.
Picture, if you will, the Titanic--- hull split and water gushing in by the thousands of gallons per minute. Picture, now, a sincere and well-intended passenger who is distressed that the cold-water faucet in his lavatory is dripping. He asks whether it would help "save" the ship to install a new rubber washer.
Does that passenger's priorities make any sense at all?
Honestly, life is full of things over which we can legitimately wring our hands and worry. The impact of QSL cards on the Earth is not one of them.
Besides...when the oil runs out in 2050, I may need my cards to heat my house with ;)
Pete
AC7ZL
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
eHam has sunk to a new low. What about the environmental impact of this bovine fecal matter?
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N3JBH on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by W8JAS
"I dunno if he is too nuts. According to his webpage he is on disability. Now it also says he enjoys camping. How can you be so disabled that you cannot work, but still be in fine physical shape to go camping? He knows how to work the system so he cannot be too nuts"
Now I will come to his rescue here. What constitutes camping? Maybe his idea of camping is going to a cottage. I don’t see why a handicapped person would not be able to enjoy this. If he is grippled enough to need a wheel chair I know several places that rent cabins that are handicapped accessible. If he goes boating he could use a pontoon boat.
Maybe his disability is a strong case of agoraphobia. If that’s the case he could be in top physical condition but still not function in a normal society with others. Before we label all disabled folks as working the system or being lazy maybe we should see why there disabled and if in fact the are using the system.
And I for one can tell you disability is not an easy ride or simple to get on. How do I know I to am disabled took me almost 3 years of legal mumbo jumbo? I lost my home cars. And now have a bad o make the horrible credit rating. Why because I had no income for 3 years. I would love to have some one explain to me why any one would be willing to loose all that for a so called free ride.
Not only was it not a free ride but I make less then 20% of what I made working. No sir your comments about using the system was just plain wrong. I simply and honestly only pray you’ll never need to find out what life is like with a disability. Jeff N3JBH
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA5MKA on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<by K0IZ on July 6, 2007
Hard to relate to some of our big-name environmentalists who have 10 cars, several big homes, travel around a bunch, and tell the rest of us to conserve. When they downsize to one big house, four cars, and travel coach, I'll start believing.>
I agree 100% ! What a bunch of idiots & hypocrites these big-name environmentalists (Al Gore, Woody Harrelson, et al) are (do as I say not as I do, yada, yada, yada). They're clueless !
73,
George---W7KCU, ex: WA5MKA
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W7WV on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's get serious here.
I am not a contester so I don't send out that many cards. So very little impact am I having on the environment.
Further, I am old fashioned and believe for those that want and request them that this is the gentleman's why to do the exchange.
eQSL is OK, but there is something very nice about a hand written card.
I don't' collect them myself, but I do keep the ones that have been sent.
I just don't think the average ham is sending out that many cards in the first place.
Further, I just remodeled my kitchen and I threw enough cardboard away that my 22 cabinets came in to recycle into thousands of QSL cards. (and yes the cardboard went to recycle~~Geez!)
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KE4DRN on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
hi,
The millions and millions of AOL floppy disks,
compact discs and plastic advertising AOL mailed
out did more damage to our environment then all
the paper qsl cards combined !
73 james
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Actually QSL cards are helpful to the environment and the fight against global warming for one reason: Carbon Sequestration.
Certainly true if you dismiss production and multiple transportations.
After you hold them as long as possible, try and get them in a typical landfill! You can count ob 150 years or so before that nasty stuff get back in the atmosphere ;)
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W7WV >>>I just don't think the average ham is sending out that many cards in the first place.
Forget trees for a moment and look at the other factors. Isn't it possible they affect this decline?
Most new hams are pretty internet savvy these days. Give them a way to use that and maybe the decline could be reversed.
Just for the record, I don't think eQSL is "there" yet. It's image resolution for custom cards isn't that great and there is little personalization possible for filled in fields.
That is just a current eQSL issue, not a technological limitation.
73, gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> What a bunch of idiots & hypocrites these big-name environmentalists (Al Gore, Woody Harrelson, et al) are (do as I say not as I do, yada, yada, yada). They're clueless !
Count me in on that! Gore's flick gave serious environmentalists a bad name IMHO ;(
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K0IZ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Now I understand why I don't get a 100% response to QSL cards I send out - there's a ham at the other end who is saving me from global warming. Thanks!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Fascinating how this thread got on to CO2 and global warming! Those was never mentioned in the article!
I'm darned pleased we have global warming, 12,000 years ago there was about a mile of ice over where I am sitting ;) For the record, I think CO2 is one of the least concerns I have. I do care a lot about the environment, just can't see how trees cropped like grapes are a big deal.
Folks have jumped on something never stated, interesting lesson in communications. Maybe the QRM is a tad high.
gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I QSL via hard card 100 percent and in order to save the planet I stopped writing paper checks years ago and only use my debit card and get my statements via the Internet.
QSL cards impacting the environment. What a bunch of hooey. We get so much junk mail, ads, catalogs, paper bills, etc. that QSL cards amount to no more than a single flea's flatulence in a windstorm.
I wonder if the author has bothered to contact ALL the people sending him useless snail mail and told them to stop and now gets all his necessary info via the Internet. I wonder if he no longer gets a newspaper delivered to his house. I wonder if he wipes his rear with oak leaves.
Just as I thought that eHam got finally got on the ball and was filtering out inane and moronic articles this little gem comes along....
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Adam - N7YA,
A long overdue response. Thanks for the positive comments. I intended a dialog and hoped it might expand to other activities. It appears I used a poor title.
I picked a single topic that I was certain there was a technical means to address and possible even increase success rate. The specific issue may be minor in actual impact. Thought about such matters was my goal!
73, gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I dunno if he is too nuts. According to his webpage he is on disability. Now it also says he enjoys camping. How can you be so disabled that you cannot work, but still be in fine physical shape to go camping? He knows how to work the system so he cannot be too nuts"
Yeah! I saw one yesterday that was too disabled to do his CW anymore, but he was talking about putting up antennas?
Takes all kinds!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by KB5DPE >>> Yeah! I saw one yesterday that was too disabled to do his CW anymore, but he was talking about putting up antennas?
That was probably me. You provide another great example of ignorance of some in the ham community.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N1ESE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Posted by W8JAS
"I dunno if he is too nuts. According to his webpage he is on disability. Now it also says he enjoys camping. How can you be so disabled that you cannot work, but still be in fine physical shape to go camping? He knows how to work the system so he cannot be too nuts"
My doctor says I am disabled and the federal government agrees but I still go camping and physically active otherwise I'd truly go crazy. I have a nerve disease in my face and head that result in chronic migraines combined with severe depression with terrible mood swings. I am unable to work as a result. You telling me I can't be a HAM now as well?
- JT
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K8QV on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
With the dwindling number of hams I'm told about (new bump in the numbers via no-code notwithstanding) it seems to be a vanishing use of an already tiny, incalculably small percentage of paper usage. Methinks April 1 has arrived early.
However, if one wishes to confront paper waste, what about 85 page manuals in six languages for a simple 2-meter transceiver?
I think I'll write my congressman. On a very tiny scrap of recycled paper.
Thanks for the great insightful article on the most important issue facing us, and the world at large.
- Chris
(I gotta quit looking at this website, but it's like trying to not look at a train wreck).
|
| |
|
RE: ENVIORNMANTAL WACKOS ATTACK QSL CARDS!
|
|
|
by KA0SOG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>2) The people that complain about mal-distrubution of wealth have the most? (Teddy Kennedy, heir to bootleg booze fortune)
Acthually, the Kennedy'sth family fortume is drying up. (hiccup) Sheems he can't dry up and isth drinking off all the profits (hiccup). Histh big red nose is the true sourthe of global warming. (hiccup)
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WB8RVK on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
ditto with ne4eb. the only difference is that i spit out beer instead of coffee. wa4ptz and ac7dx were great also. this was fun reading!
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by NE4EB on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gerry,
I want to say I'm sorry that I told you to get a life. You've been beat up badly today, and I can understand (sorta) the type of thread or discussion that you intended. Even though it was at your expense, I have thoroughly enjoyed the comments to your post. I 'bout busted a gut when I saw it. It truly is the most ridiculous topic I have EVER seen in amateur radio, but it was FUN! Take care and 73... no hard feelings.
|
| |
|
RE: ENVIORNMANTAL WACKOS ATTACK QSL CARDS!
|
|
|
by W7NVQ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I fully expected to hit a nerve as many of the posts we have been showed. I failed at getting at least a few folks to think a bit regarding the original intent. (environment AND economic)"
I'm glad all you guys with some common sense are still out there...I had almost given up hope...
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K4JF on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you reduce the use of paper, there will be FEWER trees, not more. Why? Because paper is made from pine trees that are planted, grown and harvested on a cycle, just like your corn, beans, and other foods. If they aren't making paper, then the trees will not be planted, as the farmer will grow something else, that he can sell for a living.
Yes, there are chemicals involved in paper making that may not be desirable, but don't think that less paper is saving trees. It would reduce the number of trees putting oxygen into the air.
I've lived in pulpwood growing areas. They plant, grow and harvest on a 10 year cycle. Each year they cut the 10-year-old trees, and replant that acreage. Next year the next 1/10, and so on.
|
| |
|
RE: ENVIORNMANTAL WACKOS ATTACK QSL CARDS!
|
|
|
by W7NVQ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Now I will come to his rescue here. What constitutes camping?"
Uhhh...sitting in a tree?
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WB6MMJ on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Now I think I have heard it all. Environmental concerns over QSL cards?
Tree huggers gone wild.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
NE4EB,
Hey, I have a pretty thick hide. Two things have come of this even if not my goal.
LOTS of folks have been entertained! Great
Unexpected, the ignorance and insensitivity of some hams regarding disabilities reared it's face. That will be the lasting memory I take from this, not the the good fun many had.
73, gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WB8NUT on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wacko Alert!!!!
Savings trees? Geez dude, cut one down, make it into paper, QSL cards or whatever. Then plant and grown another one.
Most people don't realize that the U.S. has more land forested with trees in 2000 than we did in 1900.
We are managing the resource and renewing it at a greater rate than we are using it.
And, since this guy had his license from way back when and passed a code test, you cannot say it is the dumbing down of ham radio since the FCC dropped the code test. The code never was a filter. If so, it would have worked back then.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KA8OCN on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How come a lot of Liberals that want to save the environment almost always want to do it by making the rest of us give up something? (My money in higher taxes, my nice big American made vehicle, and now my QSL's)
I will continue sending my nice QSL cards on every DX Contact and any states I do not have. I always reply to a QSL with a real QSL, I even do this with the ones I receive on eQSL.
I do not think all the global warming is caused by the human race, go outside, look up, do you see this big round thing up there that is real brite? Its called the sun and its been getting a little hotter in the last few years. How about the Rovers we have on Mars? They have recorded a temperature increase. How is that our fault?
How about the computers and hardware we all throw away? (Upgrading every few years) Thats a lot more impact than a few hundred QSL cards.
Don't believe all the hype that Gore and his sidekicks put out there. You must respect the fact that Gore is making a lot of money doing all this but its not going to make any difference. They don't seem to have any problems to tell all of us to drive small cars and to lower our standard of living but they don't lower their standard of living.
Turn on your rig, make contacts and have a ball, QSL any way you want to!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You provide another great example of ignorance of some in the ham community."
If calling a spade a spade is being ignorant, GUILTY AS CHARGED!
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N4DBC on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
gerry,
Go to one of the 'Live Earth' concerts, and tell them about the environmental costs of QSL cards.
"Any event of such magnitude is bound to create trash and use gas — and some have claimed this contradicts Live Earth's green goal of raising awareness for climate change."
"...some — like Muse frontman Matthew Bellamy — have criticized the use of private jets for artists."
"Others have voiced skepticism that carbon-neutral efforts don't absolve pollution."
http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/05/music/
main3022333.shtml
You might be asking, "what is your point Dave"?
Those 'Live Earth' events will use resources, cause pollution, and expose hypocrites, and all in the name of the 'environment'.
While QSL cards do take resources to make and deliver, I'd guess that you could send many thousands, maybe millions, of QSL cards with the resources & energy that are being used for these 'Live Earth' concerts.
gerry, if you really care so much about the environment, why don't you go after those who claim to be environmentalists, but don't 'practice what they preach'. "Preach" is the correct terminology, because environmentalism is a 'new religion'.
Preach on brother gerry! Only, preach to the choir of the 'envireligious' before ministering to us poor hams! Start with your 'high-priest', AlGore!
Dave - N4DBC
PS - I typed your name exactly as you did in your initial post "gerry". I'm no psycho-analyst, but do you feel guilty about the damage that QSL cards have done to the earth? Maybe that is why you didn't capitalize your name?
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"by KB5DPE >>> Yeah! I saw one yesterday that was too disabled to do his CW anymore, but he was talking about putting up antennas?
That was probably me. You provide another great example of ignorance of some in the ham community"
WA1WIG, I've been thinking about your response above. I don't recall if my reference was to you or not, but I really need you to enlighten me as to why you think my comment was ignorant. It would seem to me that, if you're able to put up antennas, you are employable. There is a good market in commercial radio for system installers, particularly antenna people. The pay isn't half bad either! Better than I made as a technician. I hate mysteries. Please tell me what I said that was so ignorant. Perhaps I owe you an apology.
Tom
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K7FD on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Come to think of it, I actually got a QSL made from a hunk of wood one time! That would really send the author into a tail spin!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"What the hell has happened to ham radio?"
Same thing that's happened to the rest of American society. But, to my recollection, at least as far back as 1960, ham radio was never all that friendly; so I guess the direct answer is, "not much!"
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KD7YVV on July 6, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While the author's concerns about the environmental
impact of QSL cards may be valid, consider that back in
the 1960's and 70's, there were no neighborhood or city
recycling efforts at all. There are many people who
would love to run their stations on solar/wind power
24/7/365, but the sun doesn't shine all day, and the
wind doesn't blow all the time.
How much stuff is in our landfills buried under 20+ years
of garbage? I remember seeing a film once, I can't quite
remember it, but they were finding things from the 70's.
To the original article writer, I was in Westport,
WA yesterday in one of the little tourist gift shops.
There were many postcards of many different designs
depicting Westport, WA. I'm sure there are many other
types of places such as the one I was in selling
everything from postcards depicting city/state, along
with mugs, pens, flags, tee-shirts....
As other posters have said, the amount of junk mail
that people get is another source.
How about all those Starbucks coffee cups? Their
plastic lids? Have you been in your local computer
recycling center lately? Shall I go on?
Humans are a wasteful lot, leaving their "footprint"
on this planet for quite some time.
We even have documents from 200+ years ago.
Wood is also still the primary material used in new
home construction.
I do not believe that stopping paper QSL cards will
really make a difference.
We do plenty to damage our environment every day.
I'd be curious to know what the world would be like
today, if solar and wind power along with other
renewable energy sources were the norm, and
high speed intercity rail were the primary intercity
mode of transportation.
I see many railroad tracks that have fallen into
disuse, and probably will never be used again.
It's my own opinion, but I've been to a few hamfests
and have seen hams buying old equipment instead of
buying the newest radio out there. I guess in our
own way, we DO save the environment by keeping all
that old equipment out of a landfill.
Maybe that's the check to the balance.
--KD7YVV, Kirkland, WA
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K7LRB on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From K0PD: "I do not know what is more funny,the comment's or the writer of such nonsense. Anyone want to try and blame something Ham's do on Global Warming??"
OK, you got it!! Here goes. Global warming is PRIMARILY the result of hams transmitting into non-resonant antennas, necessitating the use of antenna "tuners" The inefficient antenna system dissipates energy in the form of HEAT. TA DA!! Global warming on an enormous scale!!
Hey, you asked for it!!
73,
de Larry
PS: Please don't take this reply seriously!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just received 36 cards from the 6 bureau. I feel so guilty now, I know I caused this, how could I’ve been so calloused.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W0IPL on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It sounds time for the author to go back to his doctor and find out why his med's are not working.
If there's one thing were not short on around here, it's bizarre.
Most of this year's "lessons learned" are nothing more than
"lessons forgotten" from previous years.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K6QI on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I've got it! We Hams need to develop QSL stew! Here's how it works... You get a pile of QSL's, soak 'em in water with acorns, lawn clippings and dirt, stir over a heat source (compost heap?) and add sodium to taste. Eat your QSL stew, use the by product (poop) to help grow new trees. Harvest the trees to make new QSL's and generate steam for your power supply and smoke signals. Now we have a vicious circle, or something like that.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tom KB5DPE,
One can put up an antenna over time without climbing towers. Some tilt over arrangement can solve that problem. Having only one side that can feel things can slow the process. It is hard to send CW when the hand you taught to do it with doesn't work well anymore and there are tremors. Small rapid tremors really mess up a keyer.
gerry
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WI0T on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This might actually help make the case for better
health care in this county...
Somebody needs treatment or ran out of meds...
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Simple math:
Given, although approximated:
Ham radio operators account for 1/2 of 1 percent of the US population.
Less than 2/3 of the above are active.
Far less than half of the above engage in the practice of sending out paper QSL cards.
Of the above the amount of paper used in the QSL cards received amounts to far less than 1 percent of the total paper received in their mail boxes.
(Since those which are sent are received we can reliably use the amount received as the amount sent.)
Of the above amount of paper received, about half comes from US stations with foreign stations making up the remainder.
So, using the above numbers we find that QSL cards amount to a staggering .0008375 of ONE PERCENT of the paper that ends up in our mailboxes. That is less than 1/1000 of one percent.
Eliminating paper QSL cards will have a positive effect on the environment how?
With so many other abuses of our environment of an infinitely greater impact staring us directly in the face, I fail to see why any sane person would think the elimination of paper QSL cards would have any positive impact on our environment at all.
Instead, let's look at how much fertilizer and insecticide we dump directly into our environment to keep our lawns and gardens pretty to look at. Let's look at how many nasty chemicals we dump down our drains to keep our tubs and showers clean. What about the formaldehyde in our carpets and fiberglass insulation? The mercury in mercury vapor lamps?
An accurate list would be nearly endless and probably be added to at a faster rate than we could write it down.
QSL cards impacting the environment. What a bunch of hogwash. Speaking of hogwash, take a look at the ingredients in shampoos we dump down our drains in quantities of millions of gallons per year.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K4SFC on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been sending QSL's as an email file attachment for over ten years. I also send paper QSL's as needed/desired. I do this to save me money and to speed up the receiving time. My QSL's cost me $1.00 each to print and mail. And I suppose it's environmentally friendly also. Although not very much in itself. The down side is, it loses business for the Postal Service which means jobs. I say; why not do both?
P.S. I do NOT CARE FOR the electronic QSL services on the internet. Yes, I tried them.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KC8OKG on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I love sending QSL cards. I also like to put my cards into paper envelopes to use even more paper instead of just sending them as postcards. I sometimes include another envelope with a SASE.
Can people try to imagine what the land that tree farms are located on would become if we didnt use the paper from trees we harvest------APARTMENT COMPLEXES
Id rather see tree farms.
I also love that fact that now that I became a ham and finally print nice cards to send out, people all of sudden are too poor to send me one back or are now self proclamed guardians of the environment.
It is also nice how those with shoe boxes of cards collected over the years now will only send a card in response if I send money or a SASE.(In the USA) Yes I know I will get flamed for saying that but I feel it is arrogant how those who got the joy of collecting cards for years, who now have their fill will only participate if it is fully paid for by someone else,,,and I find it hard to believe that they paid for all the ones they received years ago.
I love ham radio and I love sending out cards whether or not it is reciprocated, even with SASE, I only get about 35% returned. I wish that trend would change.
Thanks for reading my post. Sincerely, Greg Sarris KC8OKG
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA6BOB on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I QSL nearly 4000 cards a year and wish I would receive that many back, but in any event it is the prize of a QSO.
I do QSL 100%, Direct, Bureau, EQSL, and LOTW as no SASE is necessary.
In so far as the Enviromental issue, the junk mail, phone books, flyers, realtors notepads, amongst others, are the real waste generators.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N6KYS on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1WIG wrote...."Hey, I have a pretty thick hide. Two things have come of this even if not my goal.
LOTS of folks have been entertained! Great
Unexpected, the ignorance and insensitivity of some hams regarding disabilities reared it's face. That will be the lasting memory I take from this, not the the good fun many had.
73, gerry"
I'm always amazed at some (mostly libs) who put out something idiotic, then lament the "insensitivity" when they were the ones who put the targets on their own backs. Guys like Gerry really know how to crap in their own messkits and aren't smart enough, apparently, to keep it from happening in the first place.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W8KQE on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
'Liberal' this... 'Conservative' that!!! Tweedledee and tweedledum. Jesus H. Christ... I hear the dissonant violins playing even BEFORE I read these posts here on Eham. Both parties (Repubs AND Dems) have WHORED themselves to big business and lobbyists, to a point never seen before in U.S. History. Incidentally, the present and future well-being and stewardship of our environment is NOT a right or left wing issue. The degree to which it has been hyper-politicized in this country (more than others) is pathetic and ridiculous. Whether 'global warming', or the extent to which WE have contributed to it, is valid or not (both sides have good arguments), the fact remains... we should all be concerned with, and do our best to remain good stewards, as our children will inherit this Earth. As for the QSL card issue, I would be concerned with other, more impacting sources or causes of excessive pollution or toxic waste!
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB1JCY on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I too have concerns about "walking lightly on the Earth". That said, you have to address the bigger carbon spewers like where your electricity comes from and the vehicle you drive. Relatively speaking, sending QSL cards are a small drop in the bucket. Once we've addressed the higher-impact sources of CO2, we can start talking about the impact QSL cards have on the environment. I drive a smaller car and switched to a "green" supplier of electrical power (50% small hydro, 50% wind). I've replaced my desktop PC with a laptop which uses much less electricity. If you still feel guilty, buy some carbon offsets!
Personally I like sending QSL cards because I like designing my own. I'm fortunate to have the knowledge and experience to be able to design a card in Adobe Illustrator and send it off to a short-run digital CMYK press. I only order the amount of cards I need, minimizing waste. I try to print on recycled paper when offered. But since I don't send that many QSL cards, I believe the impact is much less than my other daily activities.
I greatly dislike polar arguments. There's a gray area between the electronic QSL and the paper QSL which the author has overlooked. I can sympathize with the author's sentiment but wish he would of spent more time working out his argument.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N1ERF on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gerry,
I think the environmental issues are moot in the big
picture. Is the issue more about affordability than
environmental? If it is the real issue, then maybe you
should have focussed this topic on that.
Am I reading too much into it?
/John
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"One can put up an antenna over time without climbing towers. Some tilt over arrangement can solve that problem. Having only one side that can feel things can slow the process."
Thank you Gerry for taking the time to explain for me. While I vehemently disagree with your initial premise of QSL cards being an environmental issue, I sincerely apologize for a rekless comment that may have hurt your feelings. I, too, have had medical issues that have been hard to explain, even to my doctor, and should have considered that before commenting. The old adage applies, "be sure brain is engaged before putting fingers in gear". Now, back to the disagreement about QSL cards.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by G3VGR on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is possibly the greatest article ever published on eHam to date and it's doubtful if it will ever be surpassed. All that's lacking is references to fan dipoles and code/nocode. Hopefully the author can work those into his next eagerly-anticipated article.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB5DPE on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"This is possibly the greatest article ever published on eHam to date and it's doubtful if it will ever be surpassed. All that's lacking is references to fan dipoles and code/nocode. Hopefully the author can work those into his next eagerly-anticipated article."
May I repeat: The old adage applies, "be sure brain is engaged before putting fingers in gear"
Tom
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N5YPJ on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I've never been able to afford paper QSL cards, to me eQsl has been a real nice way to confirm contacts for me. Of course there probably have been a few attempts to manipulate the system to get an award maybe the electronic QSL method is more exploitable than the old paper method. Regardless, I really don't think the small number of hams in this world exchanging paper QSL card has even made a "paper cut" on the environment. Mass advertisement mailings (junk mail) in one day probably outdo all QSL cards ever exchanged.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N5YPJ on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh, just a wondering thought - I wonder how many of it's fuel guzzling vehicles the White House is planning on running on ethanol?
73
Richard
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>I think the environmental issues are moot in the big
picture. Is the issue more about affordability than
environmental? If it is the real issue, then maybe you
should have focussed this topic on that. Am I reading too much into it?
John,
You are not reading too much, actually you are the first I noticed that paid any real attention to the economic statements. (got past the first line ;)
Reading many other electronic QSL discussions, I was aware of many titles that would get zero attention. That said, the environment was a intended discussion. I hoped a dialog would get a lot farther than QSL cards. Believing a "dialog" could occur was my rash assumption.
I you read article carefully, it avoids "destroying trees" or CO2! It mostly is about the processing and transportation energy. How many of us are happy with gas prices or our dependence on foreign oil? I hoped to trigger a dialog on such. Any real environmental impact would not be QSL cards, rather the thoughts generated in a dialog.
Why QSL cards then? Well it is a topic many complain is a dying tradition. Discussing why "the old way isn't working" and merits of alternatives, with attention as to why some might not participate, seemed valid to me.
So far I completely failed at triggering a dialog on either environment or economics. I can only blame my article for failure to meet my intent so far.
73, gerry
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KG6QHP on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gerry,
One thing that can be done to reduce environmental impact and to save money is to drive 55 MPH on the highway
Wind resistance increases as a square of your speed. So, believe it or not, at 65 mph, your wind resistance is more than double what it is at 45 mph (e.g., 65 squared vs. 45 squared)!
Keeping your tires inflated properly also helps fuel economy.
I like paper QSL cards, there are better ways to protect the environment than eliminating them.
73 de KG6R formerly kg6qhp,
Jim
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by LNXAUTHOR on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
- i still paper QSL, but i do operate bicycle mobile, clamping a hamstick or MP-1 onto a rear rack, then using a counterpoise, 7Ah gel, and my SG-2020...
- works great, saves gas, and gets me out for exercise!
(also do my weekly grocery shopping by bicycle)
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AI8H on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey, thanks for the reminder to catch-up on some hard-core QSLing. Went to the post office, sent some cards off, then deleted a road squirrel on the return trip. It's all good.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> - i still paper QSL, but i do operate bicycle mobile, clamping a hamstick or MP-1 onto a rear rack
Making HF contacts bicycle mobile must be a real rush! Minimal power, minimal frame for the antenna to work against... Short of 10m with sunspot cycle peaks, HF bicycle mobile takes effort and skill.
good to hear about it!
73, gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AE6RO on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If you're really worried about the environmental impact of paper QSLs then take your radios to the proper recycling facility to turn them into Toyotas, eventually. Bleh! AE6RO
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W7ETA on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"So far I completely failed at triggering a dialog on either environment or economics."
With respect, one must have a strong grasp of economic fundamentals, and then go through the last chapters of an economics text to get to "Market Externalities", in order to grasp the economics of "The Environment".
But, of course, those that do not know, what they do not know, can engage in a "lively" discussion, about what they don't know.
Trying to start a lively discussion on eHam, where the entry requirement doesn't even include the beginning ham radio test, let alone the General and Extra tests, which are acceptable world wide as equivalent to a Master degree in Electronics, Economics, Psychology, Finance, Accounting, etc, seems pointless, but possibly comical, and befitting of a separate thoughtful "article" for eHam.
73
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by G3SEA on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Future rigs might trasmit / store and display the QSL :O
KH6/G3SEA
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K2LES on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This argument for getting rid of QSL cards is about as dumb as the one for saving CW before the FCC realized that morse code was a stupid idea too.
Keep the QSL cards - it's a neat tradition that doesn't serve as a barrier for getting on the air.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KX8N on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm just flabbergasted that so many people can leave such mean comments. It's not like the author has said anything with the intent to personally hurt anybody. All he's doing is passing on and idea that he believes in. And in return, he's called an idiot, a moron, dumb - and I'm sure some other gems that I've missed. All for suggesting something that he feel morally strong about, and that does not hurt a single soul.
Has the ham community finally stooped to the level of first graders, or has it always been like that? I've watched code debates that didn't elicit as much negative emotion as this.
Yeah, I know, you need to have somewhat of a thick skin in this hobby. I just can't believe the amount of negative energy being spewed over something that is not a big issue - holy cow, it's not even an issue at all.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AI2IA on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I fail to believe there is not a solution for both attractive cards and environmental concerns." - WA1WIG
When someone makes a statement like this, he has got to expect some no nonsense responses.
He wants a solution to something that is not a problem.
Any ham who does not appreciate the graphic art of QSL cards, the courtesy of QSL cards, the memory and sentiment of QSL cards, the time and expense given freely to send QSL cards, gratitude for QSL cards, the pride of one's own QSL card, is a ham with a smaller world view, with a restricted sense of what it means to be a ham, with a limited appreciation for the tradition of radio history, with less participation in the activities of ham radio. Solution to a problem? No. Simply a part of well-rounded ham activity. He is taking his "environmental concerns" to an extreme.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by KB1JCY >>>I greatly dislike polar arguments. There's a gray area between the electronic QSL and the paper QSL which the author has overlooked. I can sympathize with the author's sentiment but wish he would of spent more time working out his argument.
I'd appreciate more input from you. My stated intent was not to avoid personalized paper QSLs, rather to explore transmission vehicles and options as to where the content is committed to paper. Downsides of electronic transmission (as it exists today) were mentioned and thus discussion was invited.
So far nobody participating appears to have read what I thought was a very important item to include in the article. "There seems room for both in the hobby, particularly since the hobby is what individuals make it."
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by NT4XT on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Look, I have a small box of 1000 cards, they were nice, from Germany and everything! Paid a fair price... and then changed my call-sign. Oh well.
However, at work, and it's a tiny, two man office- we generate in 1 week, 10x more paper that gets trashed, than the amount of weight of the paper of my box of 1000 cards. And then there's the paper we must shredd to stay HIPAA compliant.
The office complex across the street has a weekly visit from a paper shredding/recycling company.
They haul hundreds of pounds of paper away every week.
It is not a company policy for us to recycle our waste paper that comes off of our printer, but we do it anyway on our own time.
So if you look at the amount of paper SWL/Ham QSLs actually are relative to other sources, you can see, that eQSL/LoTW promotion based on environmental impact is petty.
I haven't yet sent for LoTW authentication, but I can see that electronic confirmation is the most hasslefree/fastest way to confirm conceivable, and it uses almost no paper.
But like doing Morse code, some things are traditions, and in the case of paper QSLs, a tradition that only becomes more special and more appreciated, as it becomes more scarce.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by NT4XT >>> But like doing Morse code, some things are traditions, and in the case of paper QSLs, a tradition that only becomes more special and more appreciated, as it becomes more scarce.
I appreciate your honest comments.
I dismiss LoTW as anything other than an contact verification database. It has zero personal content.
Personal content is the value of a QSL versus a database. Yet we see it's usage declining. Does not that warrant thought as to ways to increase it?
I am genuine in my concerns about waste. A treasured QSL is not waste. A QSL never sent, delivered or discarded is nothing.
Thus I added economic issues, With later thought instilled by this discussion, I considered young hams. They are pretty computer savvy and very creative. They might just be tempted to QSL if they could use what they are comfortable with. Would it be so evil to add a companion means of sending personal QSLs? I can even imagine new hams being motivated to build online displays of their treasure. Perhaps a database validates the personal treasure chest.
I am evolving thoughts, such happens with dialog and input from others.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N6KYS on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>by W8KQE on July 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
'Liberal' this... 'Conservative' that!!! Tweedledee and tweedledum. Jesus H. Christ...<<<<<<<<<<
W8KQE must be a lib.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N4KZ on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This just proves anyone can own a computer and post an opinion no matter how ridiculous it might be.
You can QSL me via direct, the buro, LoTW or eQSL. I use them all.
73, N4KZ
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WW2E on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I recently ran out of QSL cards, and I wasn't sure whether to re-order in a quantity of 100 or 500. Thanks for helping me make up my mind to go ahead and order 250,000.
All the best,
WW2E
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AE6RF on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>So far I have received about the the type of responses I
> expected.
In that case...
DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
-Donald
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KE6TDT on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"""Isn't it time to consider environmental costs as a separate issue? I think so. We can find a way to electronically transmit authenticated QSL cards and only print those that have meaning to someone!"""
Good God, that entails printing on paper. Paper from trees. And that would require us to purchase more paper and more ink to print. Think of the ramification!
Where does ink come from? Plants? Trees? Good Lord!
And what about electricity to power the printer to print our cards? And our computer monitors suck up electricity too.
And when we run out of ink and paper, we have to get more. So we have to use our gasoline powered cars to drive to get more ink and paper.
And when we use up the printing paper at environmentally unfriendly Office Depot, big stinky, earth hating trucks have to bring in more!
And other big stinking earth hating trucks have to bring in more ink! While other big stinky earth hating trucks have to bring in more gas so we can get to Office Depot to get our paper and ink.
My God we're killing the earth!
I think everyone should just stop what you're doing... Turn off your printers, turn off your computers, turn off your radios... I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out, and yell, "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" I want you to get up right now. Get up. Go to your windows, open your windows, and stick your head out, and yell, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
Things have got to change my friends. You've got to get mad. You've got to say, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB3PHL on July 7, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with N6KYS, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! would the tree hugging enviromentalist WACKO'S & their sympathizers give it a rest! I'm sick & tired of all those chicken little the sky is falling, or the worlds climate is in a crisis so lets have a world wide concert to save it kind of AL GORE people! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ALREADY!
Joe
KB3PHL
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WB8NUT on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Make sure to order 250,000 EXTRA Thick. It kills more trees that way and makes for a very stordy QSL card. Heck, for that matter, get the QSLs that open up so that you have two QSLs in one - even more trees.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KU2US on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here are some ways we can save the environment WITHOUT destroying or eliminating our QSL cards.
WIPING OUR BUTTS WITH ALUMINUM FOIL (& rewashing the foil)
BE LIKE MICHAEL MOORE AND DONT SHAVE, SHOWER OR CHANGE OUR CLOTHES FOR 10 YEARS.
HAVE A PROTEST MARCH AT BARBARA STRIESANDS STRIP MINING SITES (50% owner).
LOCK AL GORE IN A LOCK BOX (Saving wasted film)
RESSURECT AND DRIVE OLD CORVAIRS-BETTER GAS MILEAGE.
(Ralph WHO?)
URINATE INTO OUR GAS TANKS.
POOP INTO OUR FIREPLACES (After its dry-of course)
USE THE FLUSHING POWER OF OUR TOILETS TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FOR OUR QRP RIGS.
USE DISPOSABLE PAPER ANTENNAS (No RF polution).
OPERATE OUR TUBE RIGS FROM INSIDE A REFRIGERATOR
(cuts down on global warming)
THROW ICECUBES INTO THE OCEAN TO HELP SAVE THE ICEBERGS.
HUG A TREE WITH A BULLDOZER (saves on gas for a chain-saw)
PLACE QUADS AND YAGI'S ON EVERY TREE OVER 20' TALL
(saves the trees from a tree hugging bulldozer)
CUT YOUR GRASS WITH A SCISSORS
AND ON & ON & ON..WHAT A JOKE..
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by AE6RF >>> In that case...
I respectfully disagree. However unfortunate, no article regarding the problems in our hobby would be as productive as the responses here. I never imagined this as the outcome, but sadly it has been.
How can a "fellow ham" stoop lower than attacking another simply because that ham is disabled? Any interested reader can make their own conclusions from what is recorded here.
What is unusual for the internet is these posters proudly state who they really are. Not anonymous as in many internet forums. One wise thing eHAM does is prevent edits once posted.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WB0M on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have to agree with a few others that QSLs are not likely a major detriment to the environment, but if someone feels the need to reduce their ham radio "footprint", they can work at recycling, cutting back on fuel, electricity, etc. Actually we should be doing that anyway, although I bet most do already. If one feels the need, you could go a step further and volunteer to pick up newspapers with the Boy Scouts, clean up a park, etc. BTW, this isn't the most "dumbest" post I've seen, but I am surprised at some of the nasty responses and the lack of caring for future generations. It looks like these hams are already saving on QSLs since I doubt they get many request for a "final courtesy" if their QSOs are as pleasant as their posts. 73, Jeff/wb0m
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W8KQE on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
N6KYS, actually I am conservative on some issues, and liberal on others. I have what you call 'an open and fair mind', which I believe I inherited from my freethinking, philosophical, and intelligent Greek ancestors. Sadly and pathetically, I have been called everything from 'lib', to 'commie', to 'socialist', to 'nazi', from the 'knee-jerk' set out there. But I wouldn't expect anything less here on these oftentimes vitriolic 'Eham' boards!
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N9AOP on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why am I e-mailing this comment instead of writing a letter and sending it by snail mail?
I am perfectly happy with e-mail qsl's but if you would like a hard copy from me, I will send it.
The ARRL and its poor tired burro is keeping the hard cards alive. Others are afraid of cheating. The only cheating I would worry about is if I was like some DX that wants 10USG for the card. The worry would be if the $10 is counterfeit.
A local ham recently died and he had DXCC many times over and wanted to donate his collection to the local library. They respectfully declined.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WB8NUT on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>How can a "fellow ham" stoop lower than attacking another simply because that ham is disabled? Any interested reader can make their own conclusions from what is recorded here.<<<
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it is because too many people are sucking off the government and private insurance tits with false claims of disability.
Like the people they catch who are on disability because of a bad back and claim they cannot work, only to find them in the top scoring position in multiple bowling tournaments.
I looked at your web page and I can see how someone would question the disability with activities such as camping, and model airplanes, and who knows what else.
Many of us are just tired of having to work and pay all these taxes to support people who are scamming and stealing from the system. Not saying you are, but I can see how others raised the issue.
JMHO
Now I got to get back to sending out these QSL cards.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by WB8NUT >>> I looked at your web page and I can see how someone would question the disability with activities such as camping, and model airplanes, and who knows what else.
Tell the fellows returning from Iraq with legs blow off they can't camp EVER. I bet you wouldn't. I guess you believe disabled folks are not permitted any enjoyment in life and have no abilities. They just a liability to your lifestyle.
by WB8NUT >>> Many of us are just tired of having to work and pay all these taxes to support people who are scamming and stealing from the system.
What a lame excuse with ZERO KNOWLEDGE of the other's situation. This kind of ignorance will draw fire from me.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WB8NUT on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>
Tell the fellows returning from Iraq with legs blow off they can't camp EVER. I bet you wouldn't. I guess you believe disabled folks are not permitted any enjoyment in life and have no abilities. They just a liability to your lifestyle.<<<
Sorry, didn't know your legs were blown off.
However many vets who have lost limbs in the war are still going back to work in some capacity. Many have too much pride and will to give up over the loss of some physical ability.
BTW, I did not say a disabled vet could not go camping. You did not read my post correctly. Two types of people in the world on disability. Those who are truly disabled and cannot function or fend for themselves. They deserve our support - completely and without question.
Then there are those who claim a disability, who aren't really disabled, and who can still work and support themselves. These are people who say they cannot work because they cannot deal with stress in the workplace, or who fake a physical disability. Then the taxpayers end up footing the bill for them to live and they get to enjoy things like camping, flying model airplanes, etc. all while the rest of us have to work to earn a living and pay those high taxes (especially in Taxachucetts) to support those with a disability of just being lazy.
I hope you don't fall into the latter category as you seem a little touchy on the subject.
Quit trying to make something out of nothing. Seems like you are more interested in trying the change the subject since your original suggestion borders on idiotic......no I take that back. It is idiotic.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by WB8NUT >>> I looked at your web page and I can see how someone would question the disability with activities such as camping, and model airplanes
This really got my steam going. I felt very accomplished after I rigged a way to operate two joysticks with one hand!
No shortage of ignorant, selfish "fellow hams" here.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WB8NUT on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>This really got my steam going. I felt very accomplished after I rigged a way to operate two joysticks with one hand!
No shortage of ignorant, selfish "fellow hams" here.<<<
You sound very capable and clever to me. You also seem to be a very accomplished typist. Who is really selfish?
Sounds like you can really put that talent to work besides sitting around typing out wacko liberal ideas on a computer and posting them to the Internet.
This is just the kind of thing that gets MY stream going.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by WB8NUT >>> You did not read my post correctly
Baloney! You were justifying accusing a disabled person of ripping of the system at your expense WITH ZERO KNOWLEDGE of that person's situation.
Not even the courtesy of a QSO first to gain understanding!!! Just presumptive prejudice.
And after "Those who are truly disabled and cannot function or fend for themselves. They deserve our support - completely" you can't help but drop another negative implication, again with ZERO KNOWLEDGE.
The thread went this way because "fellow hams" like yourself introduced the topic - look back in the messages and who introduced it is clear.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Can people try to imagine what the land that tree farms are located on would become if we didnt use the paper from trees we harvest------APARTMENT COMPLEXES
Id rather see tree farms.
-------------
Be careful. Someone might translate this to mean you don't support unfortunate and helpless victims of homelessness or something huh?
On another note, I recently bought roofing shingles for my roof that the manufacturer indicates is supposed to last 30 years on my roof before they should ever require replacement.
What is even more interesting is the plastic packaging material it came in. Environmentalists indicate that similar plastic packaging material holding the bundle of roofing shingles together is supposed to last 100 + years in a landfill site.
So, naturally this would logically suggest I should throw out the roofing shingles and use the plastic wrapping material as roofing material instead?
In addition, plastic packaging material is lighter and easier to transport than roofing shingles. So, not only should consumers use as much plastic wrapping materials as possible in their homes, but this would also have an immediate and direct impact resulting in lower transportation costs with a significant reduction in fuel prices, CO2 emissions, and will lower beer prices for consumers until 2025.
:) 73 de Charles - KC8VWM
Paper QSL 100%
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WB8NUT on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Baloney! You were justifying accusing a disabled person of ripping of the system at your expense WITH ZERO KNOWLEDGE of that person's situation.
Not even the courtesy of a QSO first to gain understanding!!! Just presumptive prejudice.
And after "Those who are truly disabled and cannot function or fend for themselves. They deserve our support - completely" you can't help but drop another negative implication, again with ZERO KNOWLEDGE.
The thread went this way because "fellow hams" like yourself introduced the topic - look back in the messages and who introduced it is clear.<<<
Horse Hockey, I just offered a suggestion and you took it personally. Typical liberal. Takes everything personally. Not wasting my time with you and if you felt so offended you would have described your disability sometime ago in all these posts. You live in the right state. Probably voted for Ted Kennedy.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WI0T on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1WIG wrote:
"...This really got my steam going. I felt very accomplished after I rigged a way to operate two joysticks with one hand!"
Wow. My hats off to you if you can fly a model airplane with 1 hand (I have a hard time with both hands).
However, it sounds that with that kind of ability you ought to be employed.
73, WI0T
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> However, it sounds that with that kind of ability you ought to be employed.
Wow, I didn't know we had so many neurologists with full understanding of issues from a severe stroke (as in needing a jump start, ataxia, apraxia. aphasia, hemispheric neglect, dystonia... ) in this forum.
my bad
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N6KYS on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>by W8KQE on July 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
N6KYS, actually I am conservative on some issues, and liberal on others. I have what you call 'an open and fair mind', which I believe I inherited from my freethinking, philosophical, and intelligent Greek ancestors. Sadly and pathetically, I have been called everything from 'lib', to 'commie', to 'socialist', to 'nazi', from the 'knee-jerk' set out there. But I wouldn't expect anything less here on these oftentimes vitriolic 'Eham' boards!<<<<<
Well, here's another one....narcissist. Newsflash for W8KQE....nobody cares. Only W8KQE is impressed with W8KQE, the great freethinking philosopher. Oh brother.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 8, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's sort of a pet peeve of mine as I am always amazed at the lack of understanding by the general public surrounding people who are experiencing disabilities in their own lives.
I have 10+ years previous direct care nursing experience at a skilled Canadian acute care facility under my belt.
I feel this lack of understanding is due to the fact these individuals either have:
A) No medical training related to the field of health sciences specifically related to the cognitive deficit in question. -or-
B) No direct or personal experience with the individual experiencing a cognitive deficit.
I have always typically considered any patient or direct family member associated with the individual afflicted with any such a condition as an expert in the field of their own cognitive deficit.
Individuals with disabilities and their family members are typically extensively educated by their health facility regarding any such cognitive deficits. You see, this is a very specific criteria all health care professionals must achieve with their patients and their families.
Therefore, anyone who has a disability is typically considered as an expert with in depth knowledge regarding their "disability" and everyone else on the outside looking in, is just reflecting an uneducated and generalized opinion on the subject.
They typically lack any understanding of the lifelong process of living and avoiding risk factors, making achievements and becoming disappointed with frustrating setbacks resulting from any such condition on an ongoing basis.
Above all, I am always annoyed at the ill informed who suggest what they can and cannot do in terms of any disability.
Obviously, any suggestion indicating a disabled individual should get a job that could quite literally kill them for example.
It's always a good idea to remember to follow your care plan recommended by your health care team as it's clearly intended to reduce any potential future health risks you may cause to yourself such as developing a clot in your brain from any typically stress induced activities involved with the idea of employment. Following this care plan, including the idea of *not* getting a job, is linked to making healthier choices for yourself and is intended to further promote an overall improvement in your own quality of life while living with any medically diagnosed cognitive dysfunction or "disability" as most people in general society like to refer to it as.
I was once taught by my nursing instructor in nursing school that the real "disability" lies with the individuals who lack understanding of a disability and not with individuals who are actually experiencing the disability themselves.
How true those words were especially when I hear about people making who are making ill informed suggestions to individuals who are experiencing medical disabilities in every day society.
Good luck and 73.
Charles Bushell - KC8VWM
Formerly employed in the Department of Nursing.
Oshawa General Hospital.
Oshawa, Ont. Canada.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by LA6CF on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I frankly believe the matter brought to our attention was seriously meant. So why can't you all get serious, too - or else, don't reply.
Thousand of QSL cards, hundreds of thousands are stowed away many places, as indicated surely by DX-peditions that worked 100.000 to 300.000 stations in a week or three.
Recently I have received paper QSL from DX-peditions saying "QSL not necessary". I like that.
But as long as you're not sure you'll have one, you still feel you have to send one. So why can't DX-peditions announce on beforehand that QSL will be sent electronical and/or by paper soon after return to home????
Then, if we all just sent to those from whom we want QSL in return, and replied to QSLs received, that at least would decrease the total amount I'm guessing to about 50 percent?
So in a way, we all can do a little, even if we DO LOVE QSL CARDS!
73 de Jim, LA6CF
http://www.vulkaner.no/r/qsltalk.html
http://www.vulkaner.no/r/la6cf.html
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K1CJS on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It seems like these days, almost everyone takes offence to the most trivial of affronts. Time used to be that only serious ones would be openly responded to, but not now. We've all become so touchy that by some an insult is responded to with deadly force.
Maybe these internet forum sites should be shut down and everything should be done face to face--like it used to be. Oh, for the good old days--then we were civilized. Now...... ???
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KA3NRX on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yeah yeah yeah, I know. Global Warming is going to kill us all if we keep QSLing in the traditional fashion. Will you kindly give me a break with the liberal guilt trips! It's bad enough we have bozos like Al Gore in our faces spreading their hypocricy. We don't need it in ham radio!
Vince P
KA3NRX
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N4DBC on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John Buckley of Carbon Footprint, an organization that helps companies reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, said Saturday that Live Earth will produce about 74,500 tons of the gas.
"We would have to plant 100,000 trees to offset the effect of Live Earth," he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701201_pf.html
HOW MANY QSL CARDS COULD BE MADE FROM 100,000 TREES?
WILL ALGORE PLANT THOSE TREES SINCE HE IS THE MAIN 'CULPRIT' BEHIND 'LIVE EARTH'?
gerry, like I suggested in my earlier post, why don't you 'go after' the 'envireligious' (environmentalists who worship the earth like a religion) nuts who organized and/or participated in the travesty they called 'Live Earth'.
|
| |
|
RE: GOOFY ENVIORNMENTAL WACKOS
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gore can burn 58,000 pounds of PRIVATE JET FUEL to make 1 speech and at the UN and he is the savior of the planet. Yet, let an ordinary person drive an SUV (which will go 100,000 miles on that much fuel) and the poor SUV owner is "destroying the planet".
YEA, RIGHT.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: GOOFY ENVIORNMENTAL WACKOS
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gore can burn 58,000 pounds of PRIVATE JET FUEL to make 1 speech and at the UN and he is the savior of the planet. Yet, let an ordinary person drive an SUV (which will go 100,000 miles on that much fuel) and the poor SUV owner is "destroying the planet".
YEA, RIGHT.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: GOOFY ENVIORNMENTAL WACKOS
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The responses here CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE just how SICK AND TIRED people are of the ENVIORNMENTAL WACKOS and their "sky is falling" mentality. Led by the Likes of Mr. "do as I say, not as I do" Gore...its no wonder people just shake their heads in disgust.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KI4LAZ on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Maybe it would be helpful for all, if you could tell us how you are disabled?
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Maybe it would be helpful for all, if you could tell us how you are disabled?
Completely non-productive, particularly since significant elements are already here! That suggests some should work on their receiver, not just transmitting 30 over.
These "fellow hams" are such "experts" that it now extends to neurology, neurosurgery, opthoneurology, physical therapy and occupational therapy. They don't give a darn about another human living outside their narrow vision, they are too busy searching for more ammunition.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KI4LAZ on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I disagree. Some have noted your facility with the computer, ham radio, websites, camping, airplanes, etc. and seem to not understand as to how someone may still be disabled and enjoy such diverse physical and intellectual pursuits. I afforded you the opportunity to help others understand the concept of disability. I would have thought that someone like yourself, given your keen interest in this area, would have been more than eager to dispel any misguided notions in this area. You can both define the issues and be an Elmer to your fellow hams.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by LA6CF on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just a few words about costs, as not everyone live in US. Some managers ask for IRCs. Some for 3 IRC. Three IRC costs me US $ 7.50 (believe it or not), and postage AIRMAIL (no more or less) US ¤ 1.50.
As retired I am giving up trying to get cards directly. That's one reason i like LotW and eQSL.
Or of course the bureau. Tnx for that.
73 again, Jim, LA6CF
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N4DBC on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Maybe it would be helpful for all, if you could tell us how you are disabled?<<<
>>gerry wrote:...These "fellow hams" are such "experts" that it now extends to neurology, neurosurgery, opthoneurology, physical therapy and occupational therapy. They don't give a darn about another human living outside their narrow vision, they are too busy searching for more ammunition.<<
=================================
gerry is correct in that last paragraph, but he may have unintentionally 'shot himself in the foot'. I will alter that last paragraph to show that he might just be a hypocrite when he charged that "fellow hams" are such experts looking for ammunition against him...
------------------------------------------------
gerry has lobbied for the elimination of paper QSL's, but he evidentially is not an expert (scientist or otherwise) environmentally. He is convinced that man is causing global warming because some "environmentalists" who are such "experts" (like ALGORE, Madonna, etc.) say that there are scientists who say so. [here's the good part]
He doesn't give a darn about hams having to give up paper QSL's, he is too busy searching for more ammunition to advance his cause of environmentalism.
========================
gerry, I for one believe that your disability has no bearing whatsoever on the subject of paper QSO's, so I think that those who brought that up are wrong.
However, I am not wrong to say that you should not deride others about their so-called expertise, when you started this discussion about paper QSL's causing global warming, even though you have no environmental expertise, and there are many scientists that disagree with environmentalists (& other scientists) that man is the cause of global warming.
Whew! ...
One more thing. I can be as 'political' as anyone, but can we please keep the politics & religion of environmentalism out of amateur radio, at least until you have more PROOF?! We've beat this 'dead horse' enough!.
gerry, please retract your call to eliminate paper QSL cards. If you can't do that, then at least acknowledge that this debate is not going anywhere, and that practically every comment has been against you (in varying degrees), and stop this nonsense!
Dave - N4DBC
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by DREWCAREY on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Gore can burn 58,000 pounds of PRIVATE JET FUEL to make 1 speech and at the UN and he is the savior of the planet. Yet, let an ordinary person drive an SUV (which will go 100,000 miles on that much fuel) and the poor SUV owner is "destroying the planet".
YEA, RIGHT.
W9WHE<<<
Yeah, I think it might be somewhat right. From the Times On-Line
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article616799.ece
Julia Roberts was last week reported by the TMZ film buffs’ website to be the owner of a Toyota Prius, the first commercially produced car with a hybrid electric-petrol engine. TMZ also noted Roberts travelled by private jet from Chicago to Los Angeles, consuming 2,100 gallons of fuel.
Then, Looney Clooney:
George Clooney, one of Hollywood’s most outspoken liberal activists, owns an electric minicar called a Tango, which drives 135 miles on a full battery. But he recently took a private jet to Tokyo, a 5,500-mile trip which consumed 7,000 gallons of fuel.
Looney Clooney's defense was his schedule dictated it.
Liberals are great at preaching this stuff - FOR EVERYONE ELSE BUT THEMSELVES! Pay for healthcare, make everyone else pay for it. Pay for this, pay for that, but don't touch my $$ millions!
Another search found that jet fuel averaged about 6.5 pounds to the gallon. So 58,000 pounds of jet fuel sounds a little high for a business jet from Tennessee to New York. In any case, it is still a waste. He could have taken a commercial flight and saved the environment.
We could save the environment, pay for healthcare for everyone, by taxing all entertainers and politicians at the rate of 95% and confiscating their mansions and tearing them down and making them live in a 2,000 sq.ft. home with a solar heater and no swimming pools. Take their expensive import cars and crush them. Make them take the bus to and from work. That would do it.
Heck, we could feed all of Sudan by just taking away all the extra food that fat a$$ Michael Moore over eats.
And people are worried about the effects of paper QSLs on the environment. Not enough blood flow to the brain can bring on this condition.
Public Schools - Keeping Americans ignorant since 1958.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some have noted your facility with the computer, ham radio, websites, camping, airplanes, etc. and seem to not understand as to how someone may still be disabled and enjoy such diverse physical and intellectual pursuits.
------------
A common myth involving this particular disability is that an individual who has suffered this disability completely and immediately recovers from it a few months following the initial event.
The "reality is" that the recovery process continues throughout the individuals entire life and greatly depends on the severity of the disability in question and it sometimes affects people on an individual basis in many unique and different ways. Contrary to popular belief it doesn't affect individuals across the board in the same exact way.
Most common symptoms of this disability include weakness, paralysis, double vision, loss of vision, sudden difficulty speaking, unexplained dizziness, unsteadiness or loss of balance.
These are the typical characteristics of an individual experiencing this disability and while the individual might "feel good" one day, the disability is such that the individual might suffer and become incapable of certain activities the next.
Victims of this disability are "encouraged" to become involved in pursuits such as the computer, ham radio, websites, camping, etc as a matter of improving the individuals quality of life.
However it is noteworthy to indicate that just because the individuals suffering the disability are capable of performing these activities on any given day doesn't necessarily equate to mean they are capable of performing these activities on a ongoing and consistent basis like an ordinary individual who has never suffered from this disability.
Fact: People with this disability sometimes experience symptoms that disappear within a few minutes and sometimes symptoms can last for many hours or even days.
Fact: Five percent of the population older than 65 has had some form of this this disability in the past.
Fact: After age 35, your risk of having this disability doubles every 10 years.
Hope that helps answers your question.
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> gerry, please retract your call to eliminate paper QSL cards.
Please check your receiver. I never made such a statement and never suggested eliminating paper QSL cards. I specifically stated "There seems room for both in the hobby" referring to electronic and paper.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by N4DBC >>> when you started this discussion about paper QSL's causing global warming
Please check your receiver, I never mentioned any such nonsense.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W1NCH on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have a different perspective:
Trees are the greatest renewable resource we have. Chop one down and another will grow in it's place. In the meantime, you have a material that can be used for just about everything and anything you can imagine. Paper, boats, buildings, fuel, food...you name it and a tree can and does supply it.
On the other hand, computers require electricity, which is predominantly generated by fossil fuels. Moreover, their manufacture requires numerous environnmentally dangerous chemicals, heavy metals and oil (plastics) such that you cannot simply throw away a defective computer; my local dump charges me $10 to dispose of every computer and monitor.
The "environmental costs" of the traditional QSL card vs. an electronic QSL is simply one perspective. In fact, the very existence of each and every one of us has an "environmental cost". I, for one, will do my part to use less and be a good steward of this earth, but I'm not going live in a cave just because someone wants to save a tree.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by N4DBC >>> he charged that "fellow hams" are such experts looking for ammunition against him...
Please check your receiver. The person that introduced disability to this thread stated he researched my web site. He then used my disability in a personal assault.
I believe the analogy "looking for ammunition" fully applies.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by W1NCH >>> I have a different perspective:...
A personal thanks for an honest opinion well expressed.
73, gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N4DBC on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>N4DBC to gerry, please retract your call to eliminate paper QSL cards.
<<<gerry - Please check your receiver. I never made such a statement and never suggested eliminating paper QSL cards. I specifically stated "There seems room for both in the hobby" referring to electronic and paper.
gerry, your original post implied eliminating most (if not all) paper QSL's -
QUOTE "We can find a way to electronically transmit authenticated QSL cards and only print those that have meaning to someone!"
Therefore you did "call to eliminate paper QSL cards" in so many words. Speaking of words, you like to 'play' or 'twist' yours.
Dave - N4DBC
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N4DBC on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by N4DBC >>> when you started this discussion about paper QSL's causing global warming
gerry <<< Please check your receiver, I never mentioned any such nonsense.
QUOTES from gerry: "Perhaps it is time to rethink their value versus impact. We can chop down trees, build and maintain vehicles, burn petro-chemicals for processing and transportation and eventually get a card to the desired station."
"I fail to believe there is not a solution for both attractive cards and environmental concerns."
gerry, everyone knows that you are speaking indirectly about global warming. Do you mean to say that you separate "burn petro-chemicals" and "environmental concerns" (your quotes) from environmentalist global warming cries? Again, the implication was clear enough for me.
I'm not the only one that understood that implication, it is obvious from the other replies about your article.
Dave - N4DBC
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Some have noted your facility with the computer, ham radio, websites, camping, airplanes, etc. and seem to not understand as to how someone may still be disabled and enjoy such diverse physical and intellectual pursuits.
Charles,
Thanks for your very accurate comments. Only one with relevant experience would have picked up as much a you did from my limited disclosure of personal medical information.
One thing some may have overlooked is attempting to return to work and not being to get a "return to work" status from any attending physician.
73, gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Do you mean to say that you separate "burn petro-chemicals" and "environmental concerns"
YES! One interested in a dialog would find that out quickly. One that read later posts would note my comments to support this perspective. No "save a tree" and some humor regarding "global warming". I'm not "changing my story" at this point to get out of a bind.
It was a difficult article to word, starting an article listing everything one does not mean is pretty difficult.
That said, I can see how my words could be construed to mean something else by one expecting to hear "global warming"
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N4DBC on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by N4DBC >>> he charged that "fellow hams" are such experts looking for ammunition against him...
gerry wrote: <<< Please check your receiver. The person that introduced disability to this thread stated he researched my web site. He then used my disability in a personal assault.
I believe the analogy "looking for ammunition" fully applies.
----------------------------------
gerry, I agree with you that "looking for ammunition" applies. But evidentally, you didn't understand my reply.
I wrote: "gerry, I for one believe that your disability has no bearing whatsoever on the subject of paper QSO's, so I think that those who brought that up are wrong." So those who looked up your personal information may well have been "looking for ammunition", I thought that point was clear enough.
However, that does not excuse you of using "environmental concerns" to further your environmentalist (implied global warming) agenda as "ammunition" against amateurs who prefer paper QSL's, even though you have provided no proof that you are an environmental 'expert'.
Besides, the media outlets & many 'envireligious' types think that ALGORE is an environmental expert. HA! Even P.T. Barnum would have to 'tip his hat' to ALGORE for the scam that he is running.
For what it is worth Gerry, I don't do paper QSL's, but I surely don't think that those who do are significantly impacting the environment. I might start doing paper QSL's as a result of this "discussion", I better appreciate them for what they are...
I guess it is not having the affect that you desired, eh Gerry?
73, Dave N4DBC
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KI4LAZ on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Does the illness that produces this disability have a name?
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Your welcome Gerry.
I felt it was necessary to educate the ham radio community using my clinical experience on the subject. I do understand how your disability is irrelevant to the discussion at hand however sometimes it's necessary to do a little "myth busting" if you know what I mean.
Personally, I don't know of any physician that will openly assume the medical liability of permitting any individual exhibiting the symptoms described above to operate a crane and wrecking ball even though they might be able to operate a joystick on a wheelchair. I am not implying or suggesting you even have a wheelchair but you should get the point.
Similarly, I have yet to observe any employer who would assume the liability and would openly demonstrate the insurable risk of employing any individual demonstrating the symptoms described above.
However for some apparent and unexplainable reason, some people "ie. PO'ed taxpayers" feel many disabled people with such a condition who demonstrate they are capable of doing certain activities from time to time, should be out working for a living paying taxes just like everyone else and not collecting a check from uncle same despite these relevant facts outlined above.
What they fail to understand is that this is not how things work in the reality of things. We live in a world of assumed liabilities and legalities. Risks physicians and employers are not willing to take.
Perhaps these PO'ed New York City construction worker taxpayers who smoke cigars advocating for all disabled people to start working and start paying taxes are the same type of individuals who also advocate for 5 year old children to start working in the coal mines. Perhaps these same individuals should stop complaining and start assuming the risks associated with employing disabled people instead?
Do keep up the good fight Gerry.
My Best.
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Does the illness that produces this disability have a name?
-----------
Must we always "label people" who have disabilities with a clinical name or something?
Oh hey, there's Joe, he has blah, blah, blah disability.
Or here we have Sam, he has .... insert disability name in the blanks.
I feel the author has a right to maintain his medical confidentiality about nature of his particular disability and I understand perfectly why.
Can you tell us about your 1099 you filed for the last year?
How do you feel about the topic of personal privacy?
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Getting back on topic and in all fairness, I should mention I disagree with eliminating paper QSL's.
However, I am all for eliminating all unsolicited junk mail arriving in my mailbox.
Daily junk mail statistics you ask?
Stand by ..Googling...
Ok I'm back and here it is.
"Each year, 100 million trees are used to produce junk mail;
250,000 homes could be heated with one day's supply of junk mail; and
Americans receive almost 4 million tons of junk mail every year."
Source: Ohio State EPA
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/opp/consumer/junkmail.html
Any takers?
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> However, that does not excuse you of using "environmental concerns" to further your environmentalist (implied global warming) agenda as "ammunition" against amateurs who prefer paper QSL's, even though you have provided no proof that you are an environmental 'expert'.
Dave,
Please check your receiver. I never mixed responses to personal assaults with discussion of QSLs. Threads take on a life of their own and I felt strongly about certain personal assaults.
Attacking disabled persons, solely on that basis, WITH NO KNOWLEDGE drew fire and will draw fire.
Apparently you feel adding words never stated an acceptable means of manipulating discussions. You continue to insert content I never expressed and attribute it to me.
Please check your receiver. I never claimed to be an environmental expert. I was unaware lay persons are forbidden from discussing an issue.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Americans receive almost 4 million tons of junk mail every year."
Source: Ohio State EPA
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/opp/consumer/junkmail.html"
...
There is an interesting topic there a bit associated with a diversion here. PRIVACY!
Directly from that site:
"One of the most effective things you can do is to write letters to mail preference services and credit bureaus requesting that your name and address be removed from their lists. The names and addresses of the largest name-selling companies are listed on the back side of this fact sheet."
Your "private" information at credit bureaus is sold!
Kill two birds with one stone, stop junk mail and help protect your personal information.
Hams are communicators, why not communicate this type of information?
73, gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> "ammunition" against amateurs who prefer paper QSL's
This is manipulation by omission, just as deceitful. The original article was fully inclusive of amateurs who prefer paper QSL's"
From the original article:
"There seems room for both in the hobby"
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W9ZXT on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you take life that serious to ponder things such as this. You worry too much. I get on E-ham now and then, just to look at things like this. It just reminds me why I gave up this hobby, sold my gear, and bought a Harley.
Money well spent!
When you worry, you put God in box!
Hey, that's just me! Do your thing!!
W9ZXT
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hams are communicators, why not communicate this type of information?
73, gerry
------
Perhaps this even explains the title of this entire discussion thread huh?
A few weeks ago someone offered up an article discussing the use of incandescent vs. fluorescent light bulbs so it seems the topic of using less paper in our hamming activities only seems like a very reasonable proposition to think about to me.
While I don't feel paper QSL'ing is the main contributor of this problem involving post consumer landfills, I can see how bringing up this subject to light for discussion in the ham community can create awareness of the "paper problem" we are having in our general society.
Perhaps some people in this forum are just not getting that particular point and they are only solely focused on the QSL card side of things?
Here are some additional and interesting information for readers especially if they are thinking recycling is somehow the ultimate answer to our post consumer paper problems:
Over 48 million tons of paper reaches our landfills each year.
It can take as much as 60% of the energy that produced the original virgin pulp to recycle the very same paper.
Post consumer waste needs to be transported from homes and to recycling centers. Fuel to transport recyclable materials also must be accounted for during the recycling process. Through recycling we are basically trading one problem (the disposal of paper) for several other problems (chemical waste, petroleum burn, and fresh water usage in the process).
We are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and using up our precious water supplies to recycle paper. Is it just me or are these exactly the things we want to avoid doing today?
So this raises the question of whether recycling is the answer to the huge paper problem in our society today? Would it be reasonable to assume that perhaps it would be more efficient and more effective to completely eliminate unnecessary paper usage in the first place instead of recycling as the ultimate answer?
I suppose it's something to think about while driving your Hummer to Mikey D's for a Shake and Fries or even when considering sending a QSL card for that matter. The question it seems really isn't about QSL'ing itself, but rather how do we as hams strike an acceptable balance in our everyday lifestyles using paper (including our hamming activities) and yet still enjoy the many things we like to enjoy doing as consumers?
The QSL card and reading QST magazines are a tradition many hams enjoy but similarly we throw
48 million tons of paper every year.
Should cleaning up our act include activities like delivering QST by electronic means in the form of a .pdf file? Could we send eqsl's instead of QSL cards? Obviously the answer to both questions is a resounding Yes and Yes however, the main thing here is "communicating" this awareness involving the many things we can do not necissarily as hams, but rather as general consumers as a whole.
Interesting topic. Thanks for contributing something for all of us to think about.
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For the record, WA1WIG's personal belief regarding "Global Warming" and "trees". It is not supported by referenced scientific data.
Global warming has come and gone for at least as long as the planet has had lifeforms. Had there not been major warming in the last 12,000 years, where I am typing tis would be under ~1 mile of ice.
The following addresses "global warming" as I believe the term is most commonly used today.
Global warming began as a legitimate research exercise.
Global warming became a popular way to get research funds. Get folks worried and researchers get funds. At this point it still is a valid exercise but driven by obtaining funding.
Global warming then became politicized. A way to influence the populace. With this effect, one should be extremely suspect of the motive for any statements.
... end of global warming
I am an avid lay environmentalists with considerable contact with profesionals. I have near zero concern over use of renewable resources.
My lay opinion about trees is it is wise to preserve some, wise to cut some. Since humans have decided to suppress natural forest fires, an unnatural balance has been created. The best example of rational replacement of fires I am aware of is the White Mountain National Forrest in NH. Commercial logging is MANDATED! However not traditional "high grading" logging. Loggers must clear cut to the ground, emulating a fire as best as practical. This has been well demonstrated to reasonably emmulate the primeval NH forests. New growth by natural seeding provides habitat and fire barriers for certain areas preserved for human aesthetic value.
Cropping trees? Grow trees, corn, whatever...
... end of trees
This is by no means the limit of my enviromental concerns. My thoughts in the original article were related to consuming non-renewable resources, pollution and other insults to the planet. That is a far longer discussion.
Setting "intent" straight for the record on two items I obviously was not clear on in the original article. I worried about acute boredom ;)
WA1WIG
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Perhaps this even explains the title of this entire discussion thread huh?
Wow, head slap hear. Where was that thought when I wrote the article ;(
73, gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KI4LAZ on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<Must we always "label people" who have disabilities with a clinical name or something?>>
I was simply curious as to whether you had any understanding of a topic which you profess to be an "expert". I now have my answer.
<<I feel the author has a right to maintain his medical confidentiality about nature of his particular disability and I understand perfectly why.>>
Does this also apply to describing symptoms as you have so eloquently expressed? I am interested in whether the symptom complex which you have described has a name. I did not ask for an ICD-9-CM code. If you don't know, a simple acknowledgement of ignorance is no sin.
<<Can you tell us about your 1099 you filed for the last year?>>
Try to stay focused on the topic at hand. Reread my prior comments about your previous posts.
<<How do you feel about the topic of personal privacy?>>.....
<<A common myth involving this particular disability is that an individual who has suffered this disability completely and immediately recovers from it a few months following the initial event.>>
<<Most common symptoms of this disability include weakness, paralysis, double vision, loss of vision, sudden difficulty speaking, unexplained dizziness, unsteadiness or loss of balance.>>
<<Victims of this disability are "encouraged" to become involved in pursuits such as the computer, ham radio, websites, camping, etc as a matter of improving the individuals quality of life.>>
<<However it is noteworthy to indicate that just because the individuals suffering the disability are capable of performing these activities on any given day doesn't necessarily equate to mean they are capable of performing these activities on a ongoing and consistent basis like an ordinary individual who has never suffered from this disability.>>
How do YOU feel about describing someone's symptoms(or were you only describing a disease without reference to anyone in particular), then hiding under the convenient cover of "privacy"(yours or someone elses) when asked if you have any real knowledge of any disease state(except those which you yourself may suffer from of course)?
<<Fact: People with this disability sometimes experience symptoms that disappear within a few minutes and sometimes symptoms can last for many hours or even days.
Fact: Five percent of the population older than 65 has had some form of this this disability in the past.
Fact: After age 35, your risk of having this disability doubles every 10 years.>>
Can you cite any reference for your "facts"?
<<I have 10+ years previous direct care nursing experience at a skilled Canadian acute care facility under my belt.>>
Very impressive, but I don't really care if you can empty bedpans or change a dressing. I am not interested at all in your CV. I simply asked, if the symptom complex which you have described has a name?
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by NB3O on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"We can find a way to electronically transmit authenticated QSL cards and only print those that have meaning to someone! "
Heck, I'd print all of them anyway. Cheaper and more colorful than fixing the old busted-up dry wall in the shack.....a few more hundred to go before I can start on the floor...
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W9ZXT on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Getting back on topic and in all fairness, I should mention I disagree with eliminating paper QSL's.
However, I am all for eliminating all unsolicited junk mail arriving in my mailbox.
Daily junk mail statistics you ask?
Stand by ..Googling...
Ok I'm back and here it is.
"Each year, 100 million trees are used to produce junk mail;
250,000 homes could be heated with one day's supply of junk mail; and
Americans receive almost 4 million tons of junk mail every year."
Source: Ohio State EPA
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/opp/consumer/junkmail.html
Any takers?
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
______________________________________________
W9ZXT:
Well Charles, Stand By...Googling!
Ok, I'm back, buy a wood burning stove and start your fire with your junk mail. Any junk mail left after that, burn it too, and enjoy a nice warm fire.
Source: W9ZXT
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> I simply asked, if the symptom complex which you have described has a name?
I can credibly answer that one. NO
There are literally hundreds of names used to describe symptoms of CNS trauma or disease. There are hundreds of ways to incur CNS trauma and hundreds of CNS diseases. Very common ones are stroke (clot or hemorrhagic) from arterial venous disease or congenital malformation and physical head trauma such as seen with IED's in Iraq.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards, Toilet Paper, and Environmental Costs..
|
|
|
by N4DBC on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dave >>> However, that does not excuse you of using "environmental concerns" to further your environmentalist (implied global warming) agenda as "ammunition" against amateurs who prefer paper QSL's, even though you have provided no proof that you are an environmental 'expert'.
Dave,
Please check your receiver. I never claimed to be an environmental expert. I was unaware lay persons are forbidden from discussing an issue.
===========================================================================================
Excuse me gerry, but you wrote: "...These "fellow hams" are such "experts". So, even though you didn't claim to be an expert, you opened yourself to criticism by noting that "these fellow hams" are such "experts". Are you not to be held to the same standard?
You know what gerry, this whole bizarre 'discussion' reminded me of another environmentalist. It's not everyday that you get compared to a 'celebrity', so congratulations! Here's the comparison:
===========================================================================================
[Sheryl Crow] - I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.
I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a "dining sleeve." The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve," after usage. The design will offer the "diner" the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/21/AR2007042101385_pf.html
===========================================================================================
Now listen up you environmentally insensitive hams!
Like Singer Sheryl Crow, gerry has proposed a limitation on how many squares...I mean QSL cards, that can be used in any one sitting...I mean QSO.
He also likes the idea of not using paper QSL cards, which happen to be made from wood, and represent the height of wastefulness. He has proposed a virtual QSL (virtual contact confirmation). He doesn't want to rob any Ham of his or her God-given rights, but he thinks we are industrious enough so that we can make it work with only a virtual QSL.
The virtual QSL can be printed, and can be replaced with yet another printed QSL, which could in fact waste more paper...but back to the issue.
The virtual QSL will offer the "recipient" the convenience of not printing the QSL, saving paper and in turn the earth. He thinks that this idea could also translate quite well to annoying hams who don't see things his way environmentally.
===========================================================================================
I'm sorry gerry, I just couldn't resist! But you must admit the similarities between Sheryl Crow's TP conservation and your QSL paper conservation.
73
Dave - N4DBC
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KI4LAZ on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<There are literally hundreds of names used to describe symptoms of CNS trauma or disease.>>
In other words, KC8VWM was not refering to a particular disease, but was attempting to describe all neurological illnesses and was not making reference to anyone's specific diagnosis? Is that correct?
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Fact: After age 35, your risk of having this disability doubles every 10 years.>>
Can you cite any reference for your "facts"?
<<I have 10+ years previous direct care nursing experience at a skilled Canadian acute care facility under my belt.>>
Very impressive, but I don't really care if you can empty bedpans or change a dressing. I am not interested at all in your CV. I simply asked, if the symptom complex which you have described has a name?
-----
The answer is yes on both counts.
However, I will not reveal the clinical name nor am I making any clinical diagnosis of any such disability I have described in my description above. The author has simply acknoledged my description and information provided in my post is related to his particular disability and indicates the information is highly accurate.
In addition the author indicated this is not in any way related to the topic at hand so this decision will just have to be acceptable and satisfactory as I will not be entertaining any further discussion on the subject.
73 de Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KI4LAZ on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<In addition the author indicated this is not in any way related to the topic at hand so this decision will just have to be acceptable and satisfactory as I will not be entertaining any further discussion on the subject.>>
Let's see... no discussion, no diagnosis and no facts. Yes, I think you have made yourself clear.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>I'm sorry gerry, I just couldn't resist!
I've stated before, I enjoy good humor, the comparison you made Sheryl Crow seems like very creative good fun.
73, gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> In other words, KC8VWM was not refering to a particular disease, but was attempting to describe all neurological illnesses and was not making reference to anyone's specific diagnosis? Is that correct?
Are you aware that a caretaker revealing such information is a US Federal offense?
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Let's see... no discussion, no diagnosis and no facts. Yes, I think you have made yourself clear.
It is extremely clear he wishes not break US Federal Law.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Specific reference for patient privacy
Research
HIPAA patient privacy
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WW2W on July 9, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This topic is bubble gum for the brain. What QSL card would Jesus use? Reducing polutions is great however if all humans have lost their minds does it matter if a large meteorite fragments the Earth into five hundred trillion peices? No. Good riddens. Increasing people's grasp on reality where many lately beleive that they can collectively able to reverse the spin of a hurricane by getting everbody who "really cares" to hand-spin little pinwheels in the opposite direction is out there. These individuals need serious professional help. I have epilepsy so I live three blocks from work and I don't drive. I have therefore unwillingly have reduced my carbon footprint big time. Can I now have permission, from the goverment agency yet to be announced, to operate my ICOM 735 at a full 100 watts? The receive current is horrendous however: I feel so ashamed. I will use the inside of my used Cherios and Cracker jack Boxes as QSL cards to pay for my transgressions.
I may have to someday have to answer to the Green Torquemada - Al Gore and suffer whatever desreved punishment he will meet out to me. I may deserve radio silence and some mandatory re-education detention time in order to become a better world citizen an a greener ham. Funny for breakfast I had green eggs and ham. What a coincedence. Have you finished you bubble gum yet?
|
| |
|
RE: GOOFY ENVIORNMENTAL WACKOS
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
All of this discussion of QSL cards reminded me, its time to order another 1,000 cards. This time, on EXTRA HEAVY stock!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KI4LAZ on July 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<Are you aware that a caretaker revealing such information is a US Federal offense?>>
Is KC8VWM your caretaker or vice versa?
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Is KC8VWM your caretaker or vice versa?
Irrelevant. With very few exceptions such as insurers, anybody acting with any prejudice because someone declines to provide private medical information is a violation of US Federal Law.
This is very inclusive, including any verbal or written statements anywhere in the US. One can ask, they can't use lack of such information being provided for any purpose.
Employers are even forbidden to ask! Employers are permitted to get an employability and reasonable accommodation requirement absent any specific diagnosis from a 3rd party bound by privacy law. The "company nurse" can't discuss your diagnosis with your boss.
Caretakers are forbidden from providing or commenting on a clients personal information PERIOD. It matters not if there is a patient-client relationship or not.
A disease or symptom may be discussed if it is issolated from any specific person. Since discussion in this forum has referenced a specific person, discussion is illegal except for that relating to data that person volunteers. Prejudice based lack of disclosure of any information is illegal in the US.
You have be given the specific reference, come back after you are versed on the topic.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KI4LAZ on July 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<With very few exceptions such as insurers, anybody acting with any prejudice because someone declines to provide private medical information is a violation of US Federal Law.>>
Thanks for the lesson in jurisprudence, but fraud is also illegal, as is lying to federal officials, identity theft, perjury, etc. I'm certain if you keep studying those back issues of Prevention magazine and Reader's Digest clarity of thought must follow.
<<<You have be given the specific reference, come back after you are versed on the topic.>>
????? Gerry, what is the frequency???
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Thanks for the lesson in jurisprudence, but fraud is also illegal, as is lying to federal officials, identity theft, perjury, etc. I'm certain if you keep studying those back issues of Prevention magazine and Reader's Digest clarity of thought must follow.
Robert,
What is your point? Was that an insinuation because I won't disclose private information, thus illegal prejudice under federal law? It could be interpreted that way but I am not making any such assumption.
I do not understand what you intended by that response, am honestly asking what your point was.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AG0A on July 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
For all those that say check your junk mail, remember the post office just increased postage for both fist class and "post card" rate, BUT decreased the cost for good ole junk mail. I still qsl all three ways, card, e-qsl and LoTW.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W8KQE on July 10, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
N6KYS, I was in fact RESPONDING TO YOU idiot! YOU immaturely 'accused' me of being a 'lib', but conveniently you don't remember your post! Senility must be a tough cross to bear!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB2FCV on July 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I hardly think QSL cards are a waste of paper. I get pounds upon pounds of junk mail every year versus the several ounces of QSL cards I get. What do you think it more wasteful and more worth your time going after? Besides, I like getting QSL cards in the mail and displaying them on my wall, etc. Each card has different quality paper. Each has it's own 'character' to it. The kind you print out all look the same, are all printed on the same paper.. and I think just generally suck from what I have seen. I'll keep sending real QSL cards, thanks. In the mean time, please use your efforts to figure out a way for me to receive less junk mail since I hate having to devote time, space and resources to disposing of it.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KF6BJO on July 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Wow, I thought Al Gore was paranoid! Seriously, God gave us this earth and it's renewable resources. I don't think we're going to kill the planet by printing a few QSL cards.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL cards
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If "Enviornmental" Al Gore can burn 58,000 pounds of jet fuel for EACH flight of his PRIVATE JET to the UN (instead of sending a videotape) then I think we hams can send a few QSL cards.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AC5WA on July 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dearest Gerry,
Go lovingly hug a pine tree for several minutes at least. After you're done, let me know how you get that sticky sap out of your clothing.
I.M.O. The world is in greater danger of destruction due to the poison released from improperly disposed of, expended ni-cad packs and lead leaching out of old printed circuit boards languishing in land fills than the residue of a few million QSL cards.
If you are worried about the carbon balance, go bury a tree. Shucks! Bury several and bury them deep! That takes the carbon bound up in the wood out of circulation.
Let's find something real to worry about.
73,
Gerald
AC5WA
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> The world is in greater danger of destruction due to the poison released from improperly disposed of, expended ni-cad packs and lead leaching out of old printed circuit boards languishing in land fills than the residue of a few million QSL cards.
Excellent comment and I agree regarding the relative significance :)
73, gerry
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N7YA on July 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>sigh<<
Well, all this yelling and here we are...almost to the end of the shelf life for this thread. and what did we learn?
We learned that simply saying the word "enviroment" on a ham radio website sparks the ire of all the good old boys...regardless of the context it was used in. We also learned that most folks online are really uptight and think that everyone is out to destroy their personal way of life. we also learned that america is fiercly divided and thats no lie.
Bottom line, theres too many of us covering the earth, nobody likes anyone else, nobody is listening to anyone else...most folks are basically covering their ears and yelling "LALALALALALA"...everyone is right, and everyone else is wrong...not just wrong, but insane, stupid, high, facist, idiotic, overreactive, etc, etc...most of us dont deserve happiness because we are completely incapable of giving any. this thread has proven that we learned nothing, and we are only getting worse....i hope you guys are happy with yourselves, even though i already know you are.
Just in case you were covering your eyes too...you are ALL right, about everything...and everyone else is an idiot. i hope this strokes the collective ham radio ego nicely for everyone here...at least until the next thread/trigger.
Damn shame that grown adults act like uneducated kids. it really sucks that you could put a box full of puppies in a room with only one toy and they would act more civil that we do. Ive spoken my peace and you wont listen anyway.
73...Adam, N7YA
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W5RUM on July 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let me get this right....Your worried about the environmental impact our little hobby has in the issuance our QSL cards???? Which are made with wood pulp, that's a renewable and recyclable resource. I see more waste in newspapers blowing down the street in one day then in years worth of issued QSL cards to all the HAMS in our Radio club.
You've got to be kidding me? Get a freakin' life and worry about something more important like how fast paint dries!!!
Tom W5RUM
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W2RDD on July 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
N7YA, I agree with your observations. The subject matter could have been anything.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N5AAR on July 12, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I wish I could get as many QSL's in the mail as I get offers for credit cards....
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by K8MHZ on July 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I wish I could get as many QSL's in the mail as I get offers for credit cards.... "
Do they come with business reply envelopes?
If so stuff them FULL of junk mail, as much as you can, put a little sticky note inside that says 'no thanks' and drop them in the mail. Try to make them weigh as much as possible. The CC companies don't get charged for the business reply postage unless it is used, and then they get charged by the ounce.
You will only have to do this a half dozen times or so and mysteriously the offers will stop coming in the mail. If you politely ask for them to stop it won't even slow down the offers as your name is on a mailing list. If you dog them a few times the CC companies that paid for the list will contact the list provider and let them know they will won't be using their services any longer as they feel the list provider has not screened the names as they advertised they did.
Dirty trick? Perhaps, but effective. Not so dirty if you have tried to get them to stop by conventional means and realize they ignore your requests.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB4YKJ on July 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What a lame story. Why should we give up something we enjoy while credit card companies, junk mail and grocery circulars clog up my mail box? If anyone is a religious man/women they are aware this world will last as long as God desires it support us.
We can follow all the envirowhacko/global warming garbage and will make no dent in anything. We are not smart enough to destroy something God created.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KB4YKJ on July 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Wonderful except all people do not own computers because of lousy internet service in some areas.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and enviornmental wackos!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John Edwards, with his 28,000 square foot house, clear cut a forest. In construction, he used & cut more wood then ALL the USA QSL cards sent in a whole year!
Give me a break already!
These enviornmental wackos need to get a little perspective!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Wonderful except all people do not own computers because of lousy internet service in some areas.
I'm not sure how this is a problem since the original article suggested paper and electronic QSLs coexist.
Even tough I prefer electronic QSLs (and believe they could be made a lot better), I 100% paper reply to paper received. I also send paper for some special contacts such as the other ham's first HF contact.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by VE6XL on July 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Being concerned about QSL cards impacting our environment is a bit miss directed.
When it comes to protecting our environment it is much more important for us to pay attention to equipment disposal, used batteries ect.
Besides, nothing beats a real QSL card.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WO0Z on July 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I missed this the first time around:
>others have pointed out LOTW's security
>can be defeated via cooperation
Exactly what do you mean here? If DX0XXDX and W1XXANY conspire to create non-existent contacts between them (for whatever reason), they can do so for _any_ system of contacts whatever. It's not a LOTW problem nor is it a QSL card problem nor even an eQSL.cc problem. It's a human problem.
To the extent that actually happens, _no_ system can defeat that. Who knows, except the principals, whether a QSO was really made or not?
So, unless you know of some specific method that isn't merely that, I would appreciate your enhancement of the discussion.
For instance, if cooperation of some kind can be made to produce documentation of non-existent DX stations (whether unique as an issue to LOTW or not), I'd appreciate a link or an explanation.
But, I would be curious if there were an extant LOTW attack that is actually unique to it. For instance, that LOTW was uniquely vulnerable to a certain kind of made up documentation that a regular QSL-based situation would be exempt from.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 13, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Exactly what do you mean here? If DX0XXDX and W1XXANY conspire to create non-existent contacts between them (for whatever reason), they can do so for _any_ system of contacts whatever. It's not a LOTW problem nor is it a QSL card problem nor even an eQSL.cc problem. It's a human problem.
That's what I meant. No system can eliminate human problems. That topic was in another discussion where folks dismissed eQSL's security as unacceptable and other's pointed out ANY system can be defeated if it involves humans.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WV2B on July 15, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
eqsl and lotw- what about all the electricity used to keep the computers running. All that coal being burned, greenhouse gases, oh my goodness!
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by VE3NYZ on July 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No problem if we also stopped publishing all those glossy magazines and your morning newspaper!
The old saying "think carefully before you speak"!
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KE6PID on July 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A QSL card = A postcard.
Each day I throw away a mailbox full of all kinds of junk mail right into the trashcan. It doesn't even make it into the house. QSL cards are not the problem.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KD6SZB on July 16, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can see you're very concerned for our environment. You know, I’m concerned too. Concerned that maybe enviro-nazies have way too much time on their hands. I mean really, driving “their” cars to so called “marches” and demonstrations, calling talk shows and also whining about QSL cards. Where’s all the whining about newspapers. I really think that one newspaper publisher uses up more friggin’ pulp and energy printing and shipping one edition than all the QSL cards printed and shipped in a year, maybe a decade. But of course, most newspapers “lean” towards the “appropriate” bias, so that’s a pass. How about all the paper and energy used during the production and broadcast of TV news or “Special Report” on the environment. Same thing. Did you know that government vehicles get a pass on smog checks? Why don’t you go demonstrate in front of some government agency or email them concerning that? No, it’s easier to just post some whiny tirade on a forum that has absolutely nothing to do with environmentalism. What’s next? PETA demonstrating here as to how we should not run more than 50 watts PEP because anything more might kill some bird or rare insect that might land on our antennas? How far will this go? Until we’re using peddle-power generators, spark transmitters, crystal sets for receivers and sending reception reports via horse-back messenger? You know, amateur radio operators are just about the most frugal, energy conserving people there ever was. We’re always looking for some cheaper and/or free source for electricity. How about the used equipment we never throw out, instead, it gets recycled for parts or sold to another amateur. How many enviro-nazies do that? Here, let me tell you.
=> NONE <=
They’ve got far more important things to do, like deciding which institution is going to have business interrupted by marches and demonstrations.
Look, I’m not one that thinks we should just trash the world and use energy in excess, but that’s the difference between a conservationist and an environmentalist. But of course, the root word for conservation is to conserve the same root word for conservative. That’s why it’s not used, yeah?
I’ll make you a deal, you quit using electrical energy that is 75% generated from coal, buying newspapers and other printed material and sell your car/s and buy a horse/s, and I’ll never, ever send another QSL card.
Yeah, like that’ll happen.
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by CU3AAT on July 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
QSL cards... Forever... I love QSL´ing!!!
73´s
Fábio Silva
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N7YA writes:
Bottom line, theres too many of us covering the earth...."
Another wild, unsupportable assertion for which there is NO credibble scientific backup.
My friend, the "population explosion" and "population bomb" were 1970s enviornmental scares. They were TOTALLY debunked years and years ago. Only niaeve kooks bought it then, just like only niaeve kooks buy Al Gore's global warming scare now.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AA9YA on July 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Global warming is based on wacko science.
All the loony leftist suffer from the same disease…
It’s called….”head up ass disease”.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KD6SZB on July 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> ...I'm just flabbergasted that so many people can leave such mean comments...
And I'm just flabbergasted that it escapes people, with presumably triple-digit IQs, the reason we are so "mean" about these politicaly correct subjects. It's that we're lashing out after being beat over the head with these lies and hysteria concerning the environment. Lies like these:
Global warming, explain the global warming on other planets in the solar system. And how come we don't hear squat about this crap during the winter? By the way, what ever happened to Global Cooling from the 70s and early 80s, Mr AlGore? It's brought to you by the same morons.
Air pollution, true we contribute too much, but have you ever smog checked a pine tree? They're gross polluters. And as for gross polluters, about 75% of our electricity is generated by coal. If barely 10% of that can successfully be used to power an electric car, how come they're not labeled gross polluters?
Ozone Layer depletion, okay, fine. But if all the components in CFCs are heavier than the heaviest components in the atmosphere, how do they get 50 - 200 miles up into it. Easy, they don't. Every time there was ozone thinning it fallowed a major volcanic eruption, which does launch them there through heat and sheer force. There's the source of CFCs in the ozone layers.
When one comes home after a busy day do they say, "It's a rain forest out there". No, it's a jungle. So when did jungles become rain forests? Easy, when they needed to be made to sound more fragile than they are. Idiots, we have Google Earth now so we can check for ourselves how badly the "Rain Forests" are being wiped out. Oops. Yet another lie.
Speaking about forests, did you know there are more trees in the Pacific Northwest now than 100 years ago? And my reply to, "But they're not old growth" is, "What's the difference?" A friggin' pine tree is a pine tree. Big... fat.. hairy... deal. The answer is usually, "But, but, er, YOU'RE JUST MEAN SPIRITED!".
The fact is, we're sick... and... tired of these hysterical, hand wringing "doom and gloom" liars taking over EVERY FRIGGIN" FORUM THEY CAN FIND!
That's the reason for the "mean" comments. And no, this is NOT a flame. It is a "Pack of Truths" thrown in the face of a "Pack of Lies". Pack that in your bong and smoke it, friggin' moron dirt worshippers.
Do you want more? Check out http://junkscience.com/ .
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Speaking about forests, did you know there are more trees in the Pacific Northwest now than 100 years ago? And my reply to, "But they're not old growth" is, "What's the difference?"
Actually there is a tremendous difference between old growth and new growth. When the British colonized what is now the North East, one prized trophy was 200'clear trunk White Pines for ship masts. Old growth also provides unique habitat. The Mayflower folks picked Plymouth because it was the only cleared (courtesy of Wampanoags) spot they could find.
By 1830, most of New England was meadow or eroded hills. Trees consumed for fuel. Look up "cabbage pine" and you see what new growth is in New England.
Of course, as already posted, ALL old growth is very unhealthy for forest or habitat. Naturally there was a mix of old and new growth, courtesy of natural forest fires now put out by man.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Do you want more? Check out http://junkscience.com/
Sure if you want "science" just as junk as the stuff you are complaining about. Check out Steven Milloy's funding and you quickly find is is just as political as anything you are complaining about. (both extremes use junk)
Perhaps the bottom line is, such topics are biased by politics, thus beware of politicized sources.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>But if all the components in CFCs are heavier than the heaviest components in the atmosphere, how do they into it. Easy, they don't.
I by no way by popular CFC "theories" but this statement is true junk science. Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide and water vapor all have different molecular weights, how come they all "get 50 - 200 miles up"???
Perhaps have a brief chat with Amadeo Avogadro the next time you meet him.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KD6SZB on July 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The difference between old and new growth is that old growth makes good ships masts? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure we don't use Tall Ships any more. But I'm also sure that there's no difference in the CO2 absorption and O2 emission of old or new growth, which is what the crybaby hysterics are complaining about. And as for habitats, it would appear that someone has to educate those spotted owls as to the differences between old growth forest and K-Mart store signs. The sole point I made was there are MORE trees in the Pacific Northwest, due to forest management and usage of the trees as "crops" for lumber.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you think the only place I get my information is Junk Science? Do you think I just skimmed over it and came to these conclusions without cross checking? I don't give a rats butt who publishes Junk Science, it's correct. Just because some dirt worshipers web site doesn't agree with it, doesn't make their website just as correct, they just disagree. Mostly because it goes against whatever agenda/religion they have. Instead of picking and poking at one little detail, like one of my sources, let's take a look at all my points. Name one that is wrong and provide proof. Like that CFCs are lighter than atmosphere, electric cars are energy efficient or QSL cards are contributing to dooming us all. You can't, I've two things on my side here, hard science whose findings are not influenced by government grants and, common sense.
Now, I'm not saying any one person here is without common sense. Because if one is not informed by anyone but certain people that may be wrong, they'll be wrong. In this case, the dirt worshipers, mainstream media AND AlGore are wrong. Not unknowingly I might add, but because it's contrary to The Agenda, whatever that is.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KD6SZB on July 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> ...Perhaps have a brief chat with Amadeo Avogadro the next time you meet him...
Okay, set up an "Audience" with him and I'll tell him he's wrong, too, after I hand him this:
Primary contents of atmosphere:
Oxygen - Atomic weight = 16
Nitrogen - " = 14.01
Carbon - " = 12.01
Water vapor:
Oxygen - Atomic weight = 16
Hydrogen - Atomic weight = 1.008
Contents of CFCs:
Chlorine - Atomic weight = 35.45
Florine - " = 19.00
Carbon - " = 12.01
Now, if I'm not mistaken, it would appear Chlorine is heavier by itself than any two of the major components of atmosphere. Now, just how strong of a wind are you going to try and tell me it takes to get that molecular "brick" into the ozone layers before it makes it into the very porous earth? Don't give me BS about water vapor either, they're heavier than Hydrogen, too. Any water vapor they "may" bind with will be too heavy to simply "waft" to the upper atmosphere.
It's all BS put forth by 3M to market the proprietary R134A and the dirt worshipers for their own agenda.
However, a large volcanic event does have the heat and kinetic energies to launch it into the upper atmosphere where the jet stream can finish the job. Even then, most still settles back to the ground.
Now, if there's a way for the propellant from older spray paint, R12, or whatever, can get to the ozone layers, do tell me or point me to a place/website that can prove it without a bunch of dirt worshiper double talk. I want it in plain English and hard science. Not a bunch of "Bush this", "Republicans that" and "corporations there" bullsh.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by W8JAS on July 18, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I cannot believe so many people are still going tit for tat over this environmental extremism gone mad. Let it die folks. Nuts who profess this crap expect you to conserve, for you to change YOUR lifestyle, but they don't want to change their lifestyle.
Look at the big houses Gore, Edwards, Clooney, "the Clintons" and the number of houses, big cars, use of private planes, etc. They are wasting far more resources then most of will ever use or waste.
When all these environmental wackos are living in 2,000 sq. ft. houses and driving battery cars, taking the bus, solar power their houses, have only one house to live in, etc., then I may get in on the bandwagon. Until then, the Democrats, the Green Party nuts, the self-professed entertainment elite can all kiss my ass.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 18, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Now, if I'm not mistaken, it would appear Chlorine is heavier by itself than any two of the major components of atmosphere.
Seems you used atomic weights, not molecular weights. For example Nitrogen and Oxygen are most commonly diatomic molecules thus your weight estimates are off by 100%.
Since ozone has been referenced, it is O3, not O2 thus 50% heavier than oxygen yet doesn't fall out of the sky.
Although the molecular weight of a gas molecule affects diffusion rates, it has nothing to do with stable distribution of that gas when mixed with others gases.
If molecular weight made any difference, the atmosphere would be stratified by gas type, which is is not. It's had plenty of time to sort things out ;)
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 18, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> Now, if there's a way for the propellant from older spray paint, R12, or whatever, can get to the ozone layers, do tell me or point me to a place/website that can prove it
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Diffusion
"The diffusion of two gases at constant pressure and temperature is a good example of an " irreversible process." The gases always tend to mix, never to separate."
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N7YA on July 18, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>N7YA writes:
Bottom line, theres too many of us covering the earth...."
Another wild, unsupportable assertion for which there is NO credibble scientific backup.
My friend, the "population explosion" and "population bomb" were 1970s enviornmental scares. They were TOTALLY debunked years and years ago. Only niaeve kooks bought it then, just like only niaeve kooks buy Al Gore's global warming scare now.
W9WHE <<
Jonathan, its just my own observation...i dont know about any other "population explosion enviromental movement" going on that im a part of. What i DO know is that everything pisses you off...you just dont like anything! good lord man, breathe!!! hehe.
Im not asking you to change anything about how you live your life, hell, im not changing much either...i just dont want to stress myself out over everyone elses argument...especially on here! these online forums are nothing more than opinion columns...or roman arenas for that matter. Want another observation? Just look at how we are treating one another around the country these days, nobody wants to hear anything anyone else is saying, everyone is feeling threatened, everyone is more edgy than ever before and its not getting better...this goes for both sides, liberals and cons too. it all boils down to self-importance, i want none of it!
And i still think we are crowding eachother out...just my observation. but then again, what am i going to do about it? cry? buy 200 guns and build a fortress? use only one square of toilet paper and then a gallon of water and soap to wash my nasty hands after that? drive a shoebox that only gets to 42 mph? drive a house with monster truck tires to make a point for how much testosterone i have coursing through my veins?
nope, im just going to keep on keeping on because i have things to do, a child to rasie and a life to live. im just not that focused on whos a liberal or a conservative...i just dont care, all i know is were all Americans here and very few of us can agree on anything...if you or anyone else can tell me how we can fix that, or even if you WANT to fix that without resorting to the typical "blame the other guy" mentality that we have settled in with in this country...then im all ears.
73...Adam, N7YA
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N7YA on July 18, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD6SZB typed....
>>When one comes home after a busy day do they say, "It's a rain forest out there". No, it's a jungle. So when did jungles become rain forests? Easy, when they needed to be made to sound more fragile than they are. Idiots, we have Google Earth now so we can check for ourselves how badly the "Rain Forests" are being wiped out. Oops. Yet another lie. <<
...but George Carlin wrote it.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by KD6SZB on July 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>...but George Carlin wrote it...
So?
Does that mean it's copyrighted, or something and I can't use it?
Does that make it any less true?
What was the point of this reply?
Forget about answering, I really do know.
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N7YA on July 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
wow....these threads bring out the best in folks, dont they?
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N7YA on July 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What i should have said is "have at it, just throw old George a little credit"...like many of our posters here, that old man needs a little happiness in his life.
I have quoted Carlin before as well, and likely will again, and im not disagreeing with you...PC-ifying everything hasnt made the world a better place, not that ive seen so far. Its not getting any better, the earth isnt any healthier and none of us are treating eachother with any more kindness than before...in fact its worse, so the best bet is to relax, try to enjoy ham radio while we have it, smile and say screw the rest. handle our responsibilities and check out at the end of it all with a light heart if possible...that is all.
73...Adam, N7YA
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by WA1WIG on July 19, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>> I have quoted Carlin before as well, and likely will again
Carlin uses humor to express himself. Humor breaks tension, can be used as a statement or simply good fun.
Humor is a great means of communication, unfortunately too few seem to realize that.
73, de gerry, WA1WIG
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by AC7DX on July 21, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
As a qsl manager, I bury all incoming cards after confirmation on my other acre of land. Been doing that for 10 years and have 6 new trees now
|
| |
|
RE: QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N7YA on July 22, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a qsl manager, I bury all incoming cards after confirmation on my other acre of land. Been doing that for 10 years and have 6 new trees now
Outstanding! So MY cards ive sent to you over the years are now helping a tree to grow...thats pretty cool. :-)
73...Adam, N7YA
|
| |
|
QSL Cards and Environmental Costs
|
|
|
by N6TZ on July 22, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am sure to be the last comment, and I wish I had seen this stupid article early-on.
Get A Grip....compared to the tons of junk mail I get at my house and P.O. box, the qsl card is a treasure !!
This story is what makes normal people think environmentalists need their main-springs re-wound !!
I am for conserving all of nature, but lets not go over the cliff with the Lemmings!!
SHEESHH !!
Hal, N6TZ
|
| |
|
RE: GLOBAL WARMING WACKOS
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on July 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT.
If we do not curb global warming, we will die.
Since Mars and Venus are also warming, we must end global warming or Martians and Venusians will also die! Here is the solution. Do it all through Al Gore's internet:
1) Send Al Gore all over the globe in his PRIVATE JET, burning 28,000 POUNDS of jet fuel for each hour of flight and hale him as our savior;
2) TAX SUVs out of existence, EXCEPT SUVS used by John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Teddy Kennedy;
3) Support energency independance by blocking ALL attempts to drill for oil IN THE USA.
4) Block nuclear power, which provides magawatts of energy, with no greenhouse gasses.
It ALL makes SOOOOO mmuch sense to me now.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Improve Your QSL Card Return Rate
Did I Just Work a DX Station?
Avoiding the QSL Nightmare...
QSL, It's Not Just a Piece of Paper
Electronic QSL -- LOTW vs. eQSL
Other Editorial Articles
The SB Project
Hamming It Up, The Early Years
Managing Ham Radio Estate Sales
How to Spot a Scam
JARL Ham Fair 2009
|
