Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals

scienceswitch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 190 posts

Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals

#171

Post by KETpXDDzR »

Paper straws are the perfect example of human hypocrisy. It sounds so convincingly good for the nature and makes everyone forget that the oceans are polluted with fishernets.

Effectively, paper straws are really really bad when it comes to recycling. Since paper doesn't have the right qualities for a straw (it will soak up all the liquids pretty fast), they are usually coated inside. That makes it problematic for recycling since you somehow need to reverse that coating. Besides, recycling paper costs a lot of water. Plastic on the other hand doesn't need coating and is pretty easy to recycle (a bit harder if it's colored). The reason why this doesn't happen is simply that new plastic is much cheaper than recycled one. I'm afraid with the de-icing of Greenland this trend will continue with all the new sources of oil.

Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals

#172

Post by therealdrag0 »

tenken wrote: post #60

My uncle has Parkinson's disease attributed (in part) by Veterans Affairs due to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. He can only drink out of a cup using a straw due to the trembling and shakes. Also, straws are fun.

Maybe Buy him some metal straws with rubber mouth pieces.

Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals

#173

Post by yyyk »

kragen wrote: post #99
audunw wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it doesn’t seem that paper straws is about the resource consumption or oil used or anything like that. I think you have completely misunderstood the purpose. Even with the order of magnitude increase in resources used it’s still insignificant, as you touch on. What’s not insignificant is that in the contexts where straws are used.. fast food and coffee shops and such, they’re all too likely to be just thrown ou…

from my point of view, it depends on how much of it there is and what effect it has on the environment sand, glass, metal, and rust aren't biodegradable either, but i don't think we should ban mountains because they throw sand out into nature when they erode plastic straws are generally polypropylene, which is photodegradable to relatively nontoxic materials

Glass is biodegradable. Metal is so easily recycled.

I'll note though that biodegradability is not the only consideration, and there are other important advantages to plastic straws.

Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals

#174

Post by yyyk »

hristov wrote: post #147

This smells like astroturfing in favor of plastic. The fact that something contains "traces" of PFAS is not that much of a revelation. Unfortunately, thanks to tragically insufficient environmental regulation, PFAS have gotten everywhere nowadays, so most naturally sourced ingredients will contain traces of PFAS. It is important to know how much PFAS they contain, whether those amounts are higher than the wood feedst…

I'm not so sure this is the case regarding paper straws/cups. At least regarding paper cups, they do not involve paper alone but some addition of plastics (extra hardness and plasticity, avoiding water soaking). I suspect it's the same for straws as the same reasons apply. So this measurement is likely a result of production and not outside pollution.

Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals

#175

Post by dwighttk »

ianai wrote: post #97
xwdv wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glass. Metal.

Ceramic, as a glass, is valid too. Pottery I’m thinking as well but maybe with some caveats such as non-leaded paint. Edit-I wish store items could be bought in reusable containers made from such materials. It would make groceries heavy and the cost of the containers might need to be “leased” some way (like old milk jugs were perhaps). But I’d do it.

A few big companies have tried to start packaging reuse programs with plastic containers and that didn’t work on a large scale because of all the cost and inconvenience… add in the weight and fragility of glass and you’re even farther from a cost-effective system.

Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals

#176

Post by afiori »

yyyk wrote: post #173
kragen wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

from my point of view, it depends on how much of it there is and what effect it has on the environment sand, glass, metal, and rust aren't biodegradable either, but i don't think we should ban mountains because they throw sand out into nature when they erode plastic straws are generally polypropylene, which is photodegradable to relatively nontoxic materials

Glass is biodegradable. Metal is so easily recycled. I'll note though that biodegradability is not the only consideration, and there are other important advantages to plastic straws.

How is glass biodegradable? isn't it basically rock?

I don't think that "can be eroded to sand" counts as biodegradable

Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals

#177

Post by yyyk »

afiori wrote: post #176
yyyk wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glass is biodegradable. Metal is so easily recycled. I'll note though that biodegradability is not the only consideration, and there are other important advantages to plastic straws.

How is glass biodegradable? isn't it basically rock? I don't think that "can be eroded to sand" counts as biodegradable

Hmm..

Reading about this, you're right definition-wise (Glass is not biodegradable), but in practice Glass is degradable to safe materials - and this happens naturally - which is what we really want.

Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals

#178

Post by Forgeties79 »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #169
Forgeties79 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to sell people on spending 10x the cost when they can just buy, abuse, replace after 3-5 years what they already have.

Certainly. Especially when they load the cheap stuff with all the useless Bluetooth/wireless smart phone app crap. I guess people think a crappy grill with flashy widgets and an app is the next best thing. Or maybe it's what companies think people want.

I mean I have a pretty standard $250 or so Weber. No bells and whistles, no apps. It takes propane and has enough surface for me to do 8 patties comfortably and has a small rack above it for things that just need to be warmed up more or less. I like having things that last but it's going on idk...year 4 now? And I just need to replace grates at this point. I just can't see myself buying a $1000+ grill because I don't grill every day/week and the $250 has done perfectly well for me. I don't think it's safe to assume tons of folks want bluetooth for their grill and that's what drives them to go cheap.

Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals

#179

Post by aziaziazi »

woodruffw wrote: post #154
dvdhnt wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Abundance and option (rather than bare sustenance) are defining features and goals of a healthy society… Do you have a source for this claim? It’s not something I’ve read or heard in 36 years.

I think that falls under conventional wisdom.

You’re wrong, it falls under some minority belief. Even the president of France said last year “we’re living the end of abundance” and he’s a liberal productivist. Abundance is clearly at most a target of healthy minority within a non heathy society.

Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals

#180

Post by aziaziazi »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #116
irrational wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s just outlaw everything but tap water.

You don’t have to outlaw anything. Disincentivize it. “But then only the rich will get to rot their teeth out!” Good, I guess? So what? “Poor people will still spend money on sugar water! You’ll drive them deeper into poverty!” Then the price isn’t high enough yet. It needs to exceed the cost of the dental and medical work it will precipitate. Which by definition will price many poor people out of sugar water. Which…

Nice approach, but IMHO outlawing would be easier and healthier for the society:

Easier: track down illegal sugary drinks is easier that track down at what price a drink is illegally sold.

Healthier: forbid those drinks and all the folks forking for that industry will now work for something more useful the the society instead of trying to find ways to convince people to drink their shitty fluid.

Post reply on HN