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.
90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals
181–190 of 190 posts
Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals
#182Earlier 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.
Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals
#183Earlier 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.
Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals
#184Earlier 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.
(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
#185Earlier 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
In a different context it is what happens with dioxins IIRC.
Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals
#186Earlier 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.
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
#187Earlier 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…
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
#188Earlier 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.
Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals
#189I'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]
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.
Re: 90% of “eco-friendly” paper straws contain traces of toxic forever chemicals
#190Earlier 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.
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.