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

Food Packaging

scanofthemonth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 132 posts

Re: Food Packaging

#31

Post by aldebran »

ramraj07 wrote: post #21
mahastore wrote: post #19

The planet dies everyday by our creations .. Yet we keep marveling at our creations everyday. Nothing changeth.

That’s because none of us truly want to give up what we have gained. You’re still commenting on a website using a computer or a phone. The only way this will fix is after the planet is truly fully fucked, where no amount of money can protect you from that, then humanity will figure out whacko ways to fix it. Many if not most will suffer indescribably, for sure. But I see no other way this will play out.

Some people do.

1. Reduce plastic consumption as much as you can. 2. Use reusable bags 3. Choose packaging that contains less plastic. This is truly horrible in the US. Apple sauce containers for kids have so much unnecessary plastic. I mean the ones with the fancy caps that are big only to appeal to kids.

And to reduce your carbon footprint further - controversial point incoming - reduce or stop eating meat.

“But, aren’t you using a smartphone? Do you not buy X? Do you not use X? Do you drive? Do you travel? … All your points are therefore invalid“

When I’m hungry and someone offers a slice of pizza I don’t say no if I can’t have the entire pie. I take the slice. Start with a step today then take another one tomorrow.

Eventually there will be enough of us that we opt to tax companies at the source for using plastics unnecessarily or having a ridiculous carbon footprint. And May be we can have effective carbon capture technologies and better ways to deal with plastic.

Re: Food Packaging

#32

Post by aldebran »

simulate-me wrote: post #29
palijer wrote: post #22

It's incredible that we designed a material for robustness that takes hundreds of years to break down, and it is the default material for designing single use everyday items, and then rely on all the efforts of an ineffective recycling program to maybe get a couple more uses out of it.

The material you’re taking about, plastic, is made from carbon stored inside of the Earth. If we can reliably get it back in the Earth, e.g. via landfill, then I don’t see a huge issue with it. Also, wood was a forever material prior to the evolution of white rot.

Human manufactured Wooden objects are not found in remote places on earth. Tiny specs of wood are definitely not found in bodies/blood of humans including infants.

Single use wooden items don’t cause flooding and damage wildlife.

These are not the same. They don’t have the same problems.

Re: Food Packaging

#33

Post by colordrops »

simulate-me wrote: post #29
palijer wrote: post #22

It's incredible that we designed a material for robustness that takes hundreds of years to break down, and it is the default material for designing single use everyday items, and then rely on all the efforts of an ineffective recycling program to maybe get a couple more uses out of it.

The material you’re taking about, plastic, is made from carbon stored inside of the Earth. If we can reliably get it back in the Earth, e.g. via landfill, then I don’t see a huge issue with it. Also, wood was a forever material prior to the evolution of white rot.

To be blunt your argument for polluting our environment doesn't feel like it's in good faith when you blame wood for being a pollutant until a fungus showed up hundreds of millions of years ago. I absolutely loathe the term "whataboutism" but this seems like a real example - "what about the fact that wood was a pollutant hundreds of millions of years ago? We should be able to dump plastic now".

Re: Food Packaging

#34

Post by car_analogy »

ramraj07 wrote: post #21
mahastore wrote: post #19

The planet dies everyday by our creations .. Yet we keep marveling at our creations everyday. Nothing changeth.

That’s because none of us truly want to give up what we have gained. You’re still commenting on a website using a computer or a phone. The only way this will fix is after the planet is truly fully fucked, where no amount of money can protect you from that, then humanity will figure out whacko ways to fix it. Many if not most will suffer indescribably, for sure. But I see no other way this will play out.

> That’s because none of us truly want to give up what we have gained.

Plenty of us do, but industry lobbying is so far stronger:

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/plastics-industry-contin...

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/government...

Re: Food Packaging

#36

Post by thetinguy »

aldebran wrote: post #32
simulate-me wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The material you’re taking about, plastic, is made from carbon stored inside of the Earth. If we can reliably get it back in the Earth, e.g. via landfill, then I don’t see a huge issue with it. Also, wood was a forever material prior to the evolution of white rot.

Human manufactured Wooden objects are not found in remote places on earth. Tiny specs of wood are definitely not found in bodies/blood of humans including infants. Single use wooden items don’t cause flooding and damage wildlife. These are not the same. They don’t have the same problems.

Tetra Pak is primarily paper.

Re: Food Packaging

#37

Post by gruez »

palijer wrote: post #22

It's incredible that we designed a material for robustness that takes hundreds of years to break down, and it is the default material for designing single use everyday items, and then rely on all the efforts of an ineffective recycling program to maybe get a couple more uses out of it.

It's not really "incredible" when you consider that material properties like "robustness" and "years to break down" aren't sliders you can adjust willy nilly. It just turns out stuff that can break down, break down really fast (eg. cardboard), and the ones that can last at least a year or two, last for centuries.

Re: Food Packaging

#38

Post by kortilla »

mahastore wrote: post #19

The planet dies everyday by our creations .. Yet we keep marveling at our creations everyday. Nothing changeth.

The planet’s “life” is a human creation as well. There have been several ELEs and the planet is still “alive”.

Re: Food Packaging

#39

Post by ars »

adewinter wrote: post #10

It's weird that CT scans cost hundreds (thousands?) of dollars when used in medicine but at the airport everyone's baggage is routinely scanned for approx. $free. Is the hardware and software needed for CT scans really that expensive or not?

The air port has an x-ray machine, not a CT scanner. The CT has a ring the spins around the object making a 3d image - they don't have that at the airport.

X-rays are quite cheap in the medical world (reading them is where the cost is, not taking the x-ray).

Re: Food Packaging

#40

Post by joshvm »

metal_am wrote: post #24
adewinter wrote: post #10

It's weird that CT scans cost hundreds (thousands?) of dollars when used in medicine but at the airport everyone's baggage is routinely scanned for approx. $free. Is the hardware and software needed for CT scans really that expensive or not?

Airport scanners are not CT. They will only give you one projection. I would also be willing to bet these CT machines can only scan a very small volume. Typically, they will rotate the sample, not the X-ray source and detector. I’d imagine some of the cost comes from being able to move the source and detector while keeping everything in alignment. (Disclaimer: My experience is secondhand with scanning metals)

Newer ones are actually moving to CT. If you go through one of those security checkpoints, you don't need to take anything out of your bag. They were being used at some terminals at Heathrow - but confusingly not all. I think T2 has them, or at least were trialing them when I flew in September 2020. T5 definitely didn't in January.
Post reply on HN