Live data from Hacker News

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

scienceswitch.com

181–190 of 190 posts

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

#181
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hadn't seen them myself. I do figure that if it were to work, it would require the customer side to be involved in the financing of it. Kind of like buying a growler for a local brew pub. That probably wouldn't scale to every item a person buys in a store perfectly - hence the "lease" term above. Need some flexibility on the corners.

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

#182
post #177
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bio degradable), but in practice Glass is degradable to safe materials - and this happens naturally - which is what we really want.

so is polypropylene; by this measure polypropylene is just as good as glass

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

#183
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a lot of things that we don’t need. Abundance and option (rather than bare sustenance) are defining features and goals of a healthy society. That’s a long way of saying that there are a lot of things we don’t need, but that eliminating them makes relatively little sense. We should instead develop compensating systems based on those needs (such as disincentivizing single-use straws, and normalizing reusable on…

> 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.

Out of curiosity, why do you say 36 years specifically?

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

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't know if this was intentional on your part, but that Macron quote appears to be grossly out of context: he said it in the context of an expected difficult winter due to the war in Ukraine and an ongoing drought in Europe[1]. He ties it more broadly into consumer changes that will need to happen as part of climate change, but he's not talking about an end to the kind of baseline abundance that citizens of modern developed countries expect (around competing products in their stores, etc.).

(And in case it isn't clear: I'm entirely for reducing society's unnecessary forms of consumption, especially when it comes to personal modes of transit, wasteful packaging, and unsustainable residential patterns. But abundance is an independent variable.)

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/24/macron-warns-o...

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

#185
post #182
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

so is polypropylene; by this measure polypropylene is just as good as glass

isn't the problem with plastics that once they are underwater or otherwise out of strong sunlight they take forever to degrade or break?

In a different context it is what happens with dioxins IIRC.

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

#186
post #185
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so is polypropylene; by this measure polypropylene is just as good as glass

isn't the problem with plastics that once they are underwater or otherwise out of strong sunlight they take forever to degrade or break? In a different context it is what happens with dioxins IIRC.

polypropylene is indeed pretty inert when it's not photodegrading (though there are some interesting studies finding biodegradation https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:yE8AZEyCArgJ:sc... but all in aerobic environments afaik), but when it does biodegrade or photodegrade, the degradation products are pretty harmless, as with glass and sand

it does photodegrade reasonably fast if exposed to sunlight, in years rather than decades (or millennia as in glass)

because it's so inert, it's pretty harmless when not degraded unless it's been soaking in something more toxic. it's been used in human body implants, for example, but it does cause some irritation in that role (https://theperfectboobs.net/index.php?topic=27773.0 has some nsfw discussion of this and https://everything2.com/title/Polypropylene+string+breast+im... has a safer summary)

implanted soda-lime glass causes irritation in a similar way, by the way; i have a granuloma in my foot right now which is encapsulating a splinter of glass i'm biodegrading. the issue with polypropylene is that it's, believe it or not, more resistant to biodegradation than glass, at least inside the human body

the issue with polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins is not just their persistence; as pointed out above, things like glass, sand, and polypropylene are even more persistent. the issue is that in addition to being persistent, they're toxic—but not acutely so, except in extreme yushchenko-like cases

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

#187
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not surprised you replied in less time than it takes to read the first paragraph. The study is about embedded energy, so yes one assumes it does account for energy used growing trees (remember the solar energy they use is free), unless you have evidence to the contrary? I can’t even start understanding that logic. The whole reason we’re having this discussion is that we know the environment, especially marine lif…

i have added my calculations to the contrary to the comment above, perhaps after you wrote your comment, so you can see that i had somehow come to the correct conclusions before reading the first paragraph consider the possibility that this is because i have previous knowledge of the area instead of just pasting the first link google throws at me, so my opinions are based on domain knowledge instead of the kind of co…

The Wikipedia article you linked to says a marketing firm estimated daily usage of plastic straws in the US at 390M, not much lower than the kid's estimate. The estimate for Europe is 25 billion/year, according to other sources that are also not a 9-year old.

Why are you surprised solar energy is free? We're talking about trees. It's not accounting for the energy consumed in the creation of crude oil either, I'm sure you already know that "embedded energy" refers to extraction + transportation + manufacture, not the mass of the materials.

Straws are especially harmful to animals as it already comes in an easily 'consumable' size, even before it starts degrading. They are nearly always single-use and thrown away at a rate higher than any other plastic product. Research keeps popping up pointing to plastic as a contributor to the death of coral reefs, damage to sea life, and we have no idea about the actual impact of microplastics now found embedded in the tissues of every living being.

I still cannot understand what type of argument you're trying to make. Having plastic everywhere is obviously not good for the environment even if paper ones take more resources. Paper is renewable and biodegradable, oil/plastic is not, and we still have several orders of magnitude more energy available.

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

#188
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t help asking weather do we as a society need lipstick ?

Well, you could mandate that women aren't allowed to use particular types of beauty products to compete for more desirable partners, and hope that the follow-on effects of that lead to lower straw usage. But then you're totalitarian and convoluted.

It’s not more totalitarian than most of the laws, you’re just not used to this one. Someone from another planet may be stunned by the fact you can’t drive your car at the speed you wish, some sexual practice are prohibited and many chemicals used for decades are now forbidden.

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

#189
post #26

I'm sure someone probably feels strongly about this, but I will ask anyway: Do we as a society even need straws? I never use a straw at home. The only time I would consider wanting one would be for a milkshake maybe, due to its thickness making it hard to sip otherwise. I am not anti-straw, just think it is sort of a weird thing for our society to use when I stop to think about it.

[flagged]

Please don't post unsusbtantive and/or flamebait comments, no matter how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.

We've had to warn you about this many times in the past. Fortunately it looks like you've been doing it less lately, but please don't go back to posting the other way.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't have to know at what price the drinks are sold. All that matters as the government is that you know how much is being moved around. Then you charge each link in the chain appropriately. The rest works itself out in the market.

I disagree with the legislative approach, but just think of how much cheap/free labor the war on drugs supplies. A war on sugar would keep those numbers up! Good job boys, promotions all around!

In the more boring dystopia, the disincentivization would lead to poor quarterly financials and cause the same movement in the industry. Nobody is pumping out cola at a loss simply because it's their passion project.

Post reply on HN