Plastic (as started by the break the bottled water habit campaign)
Opening the forum to discuss the topic of plastics - their impact on the environment and our bodies.
The original post that started this discussion. (Contest no longer running, though you can still take the pledge):
Break the Bottled Water Habit, Win a Prize and Cut Your Carbon
When you want pure, healthy drinking water, you should reach for bottled water, right? Surprisingly, on neither a personal nor a global level are you making a healthy choice.
For each gallon of water bottled, two gallons are wasted; producing the plastic wastes the energy equivalent of a quarter-bottle’s worth of oil. And what’s in the bottle could just be tap water.
This October we’re asking you to think about where the water in that bottle came from, and where the plastic is going…take the Carbon Conscious Consumer pledge and drink to a healthy ecosystem.
Plastic Pollution
FACT: Only 3.5% of plastics are recycled in any way. 63 pounds of plastic packaging goes into landfills in the U.S. per person per year. Broken, degraded plastic pieces outweigh surface zooplankton in the Central North Pacific by 6 to 1.
Reported by StopGlobalWarming.org
Connecticut Attorney General Investigates Industry Marketing
"Blumenthal is focusing on an industry meeting held in May. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel obtained a summary of the discussion, which included possible strategies to better market BPA, including getting a pregnant woman to serve as a spokeswoman - the “holy grail’’ according to the memo."
Plastics industry posts study on health risk of reusable bags
Plastics industry posts study on health risk of reusable bags
Swab tests of reusable bags last November revealed a bacteria count of 1,800 colony-forming units while 550 were discovered in Tupperware containers. A mould count of 290 was discovered in bags and 10 Tupperware compared with a typical mold count of 150 or less per cubic metre of room air at that time of year.
“The test findings clearly support concerns that reusable grocery bags can become an active microbial habitat and a breeding ground for bacteria, yeast, mold and coliforms.” concluded the study which was funded by the Environment and Plastic Industry Council (EPIC). “This is supported by the high bacterial counts showing that the bag surface (interior) can harbour or breed substantial bacterial populations.”
(and this is their headline following the study...)
Reusable food shopping bags and packages can contain a high level of bacteria, yeast, mold and coliform counts which pose a significant food safety risk, warns a new study from Sporometrics, an environmental microbiology lab based in Toronto, Canada.
Meanwhile, some have questioned the findings of study since it was funded by EPIC which would benefit from the greater use of plastic bags.
“I definitely think that this is their last, final, desperate attempt to scare people off of reusable bags,” said Heather Marshall, spokesperson for the Toronto Environmental Alliance. Neither E. coli nor salmonella, two of the most dangerous food-borne bacteria, were found in any of the bags.
But Cathy Cirko, EPIC vice president Cathy Cirko said: "The (plastic) industry strongly supports reduction and reuse, and recognizes use of reusables as good environmental practice, but it does not want to see these initiatives inadvertently compromise public health and safety."
What do you think?
health risks of reusable bags
Chicago bans sale of baby bottles, sippy cups with BPA
Chicago bans sale of baby bottles, sippy cups with dangerous chemical. -
The City Council's vote Wednesday to make Chicago the first U.S. city to ban
bisphenol A in baby bottles and sippy cups is the latest act in a groundswell
of public concern about a widely used chemical that has been linked to
cancer, diabetes and other ailments.
>> The Chicago Tribune >> News Stories >>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-chicago-bpa-baby-bottles-14may14,0,5399504.story
First state bans BPA in baby bottles
Similar bans on the use of BPA in baby bottles are under consideration in California, New York and Connecticut. Also a nationwide ban has been proposed to Congress.
Meanwhile, a Chicago City Council advisory panel has given preliminary approval earlier this week to a proposal to ban the sale of baby bottles containing BPA.
The ban would apply to empty food or drink containers intended for use by children under three years of age.
Chemical industry representatives at the hearing disputed the link between BPA and medical problems. "
Massachusetts issues warning on BPA
"Massachusetts public health officials warned parents of young children yesterday to avoid storing infant formula or breast milk in plastic bottles containing bisphenol A - and urged pregnant or breast-feeding women to avoid the common chemical in other food and drink containers."
good brief q&a about avoiding BPA attached to this article
Hey I saw that one too
Harvard study shows BPA levels in unheated bottles
There was a lot of useful information in this article:
"Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health found that people who drank for a week from the clear plastic polycarbonate bottles increased concentrations of bisphenol A - or BPA - in their urine by 69 percent."
"Numerous animal studies in recent years suggest that low levels of BPA might cause developmental problems in fetuses and young children and other ill effects. The health effects on adults are not well understood although a recent large human study linked BPA concentrations in people's urine to an increased prevalence of diabetes, heart disease, and liver toxicity.
The Food and Drug Administration has said that products containing BPA are safe and that exposure levels, including those for infants and children, are below those that would affect health. But the FDA's own scientific advisory board criticized agency officials for relying on industry-funded studies to declare the chemical safe."
"Led by Jenny Carwile, a Harvard School of Public Health doctoral student, 77 Harvard students in the study drank all cold beverages from stainless steel bottles for a week to wash BPA out of their bodies and minimize exposure. Most BPA is flushed from people's bodies within a matter of hours. During that week, the students gave urine samples.
Then the students were given two refillable polycarbonate bottles made with BPA to drink all cold beverages from for one week. Urine samples taken over that week showed the students' BPA levels spiked the second week to levels normally found in the general population. Because the students did nothing different in their schedules other than drink from the BPA bottles, the researchers determined their urine concentrations largely came from the bottles."
Hear, hear!
"Chemical industry representatives at the hearing disputed the link between BPA and medical problems. "
Because without chemicals, life itself would be impossible...
Hope the corporations are paying attention...
"Alternatives to BPA
Survey respondents were ranked by their efforts to find and implement alternatives to BPA and their plans to phase out BPA in products for which alternatives exist. All companies that took part, including Campbell, Coca-Cola, General Mills, McCormick & Company, Kellogg, Kraft and PepsiCo, are “taking insufficient steps to move towards alternatives”, says the report. Top scorers Hain Celestial, Heinz, and Nestlé were looking into alternatives and presented “limited” plans to phase out the chemical in “some” applications.
Heinz was “the only company using an alternative to BPA in some of its can linings”, stated the report.
At the bottom of the score table, Del Monte, Hershey, and J.M. Smucker “are not taking action beyond monitoring the industry to identify or implement alternatives to BPA as a packaging material”. No single company that responded stood out as a leader in addressing the risks of BPA. "
The customer is king (article excerpt)
The move by SIGG comes amid growing evidence that the packing industry is being swayed by public fears over BPA – despite repeated assurances from official bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that the chemical is safe.
“The customer is king, and perception is reality,” said Wasik. “But we also wanted to move to the next generation liner so that we could be as green and sustainable as possible.”
SIGG bottles manufactered before 2008 contain BPA
FDA doesn't have strict enough guidelines
The sad thing is that simply being "strict" is not good enough. The rules have to make an impact toward the goal of consumer safety.
For instance: Congress is attempting to create a "strict" Food Safety Bill which will allow the FDA to have unprecedented powers - over agricultural practices, of all things. This legislation gives the FDA the right to mandate farming practices and the power to control how farmers grow, fertilize, and harvest.
First question here should be... wouldn't the USDA have more expertise in this area? I think we really ought to question what the point is of giving the FDA that type of control over our food supply.
Though the organic standard is preserved in this form of the law, there is nothing preventing the FDA from declaring a "food safety emergency" with the powers given through this bill and then take the same stand as agribusiness did over the Obama's organic garden at the white house.
To review some key points of that letter:
Dear Mrs. Obama,
We are writing regarding the garden recently added to the White House grounds to ensure a fresh supply of fruits and vegetables to your family, guests and staff. Congratulations on recognizing the importance of agriculture in America! The U.S. has the safest and most abundant food supply in the world thanks to the 3 million people who farm or ranch in the United States. ...
Agriculture is the largest industry in America generating 20% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. Individuals, family partnerships or family corporations operate almost 99% of U.S. farms. Over 22 million people are employed in farm-related jobs, including production agriculture, farm inputs, processing and marketing and sales. ...
As you go about planning and planting the White House garden, we respectfully encourage you to recognize the role conventional agriculture plays in the U.S in feeding the ever-increasing population, contributing to the U.S. economy and providing a safe and economical food supply. America's farmers understand crop protection technologies are supported by sound scientific research and innovation.
It's clear some people argue that organic farming is a safety risk:
"A MACA spokesman wrote, "While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made [us] shudder." MACA went on to publish a letter it had sent to the First Lady asking her to consider using chemicals -- or what they call "crop protection products" -- in her garden."
It's really not so far fetched to see things going this same direction.
Agriculture is one of the largest businesses in the world. There's a lot of money at play here - 20% of the GDP to be exact. Everybody needs to eat.
22 million people (supposedly the 99% majority being family farmers) will be affected by this guidance. If we give away this control to our government we have to ask what is the benefit and what is the cost of sacrificing our freedom here.
Does all of this "strictness" really make our food "safer"?
Under the "Food Safety Act”, even minor paperwork violations could, per the FDA, represent adulterating. I work in an industry where this is true for the product we produce. Under FDA regulations if we forget to initial and date a change, a whole manufacturing lot of our product can be considered "non-compliant". Even if it meets scientific specifications and the measurements are triple checked and accuarate, that product has to be discarded and remanufacured. The FDA term for "adulteration" is a legal term meaning that a product fails to meet federal or state standards.
As it applies to food, a product does not need to contain a foreign or unsafe substance to be considered "adulterated" by the FDA.
I agree with this article: "Selling truly adulterated food is one thing. Violating unclear, obscure and unreasonable FDA rules that do not result in any harm to the end product is quite another thing. "
The FDA has done any number of things that are questionable as to how it promotes/protects consumer "safety" - such as outlawing the sale of a supplement form of a naturally occurring vitamin B6.
Corporations are utilizing the FDA's Citizen's petition process to obtain monopolies on naturally occurring substances.
The FDA banned the sale of supplemental pyridoxamine - one of the three forms of vitamin B6 found in nature by declaring it a "new drug". Biostratum filed a petition through the Citizen's petition process and received a favorable ruling from the FDA - giving the company a monopoly on the sale of pyridoxamine.
In November 2007 Medicure petitioned for the same such monopoly on a bio available vitamin B6 (P5P) in supplement form. Medicure Pharma Inc.'s petition to prohibit the sale of the competing dietary supplement states:
"The active ingredient in [our product] is P5P. Nevertheless, Medicure has become aware that a number of companies are marketing dietary supplements in the United States that contain P5P. These dietary supplements are adulterated and are being unlawfully marketed." ... "The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 ("DSHEA") specifically provides for enforcement action in such situations to protect the significant investment that companies like Medicure are required to make to gain FDA approval of new drugs."
Medicure makes no consumer safety claims regarding P5P. In fact they've done studies to show it's beneficial. Medicure simply wants the ban of a natural product in order to secure a monopoly, and says so quite nakedly. Medicure wants to protect their market and eliminate the availability of P5P to the general public except via their drug.
The second largest drug company in the world (GlaxoSmithKline) is also using the FDA’s citizen petition process in order to try to prevent any dietary supplement product from making weight loss claims. The company wants weight loss claims to be re-classified as disease claims.
Further (per the American Association for Health Freedom) - the Senate version of this bill binds us to "the Codex Alimentarius" - which at this point, is not complete. In section 306 (c) 5, it commits the U.S government to an objective of international "harmonization" of food and supplement standards through the Codex Alimentarius process. The actual words of the bill instruct government agencies to develop "Recommendations to harmonize requirements under the Codex Alimentarius." This presumably means harmonize all countries, not just the U.S., but certainly includes the U.S. This suggests a pre-endorsement of Codex standards.
The problem is that Codex is dominated by Europe and Europe is putting into place an increasingly restrictive regime on supplements. Under this regime, a supplement containing more beta carotene than a couple of carrots is deemed dangerous, as is a supplement containing more lycopene (0.5mg) than might be found in a day’s consumption of tomatoes. Just to make it sillier, lycopene as a food additive is approved without limit by the world body Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) despite the European limit on supplement use.
These above supplement rules are European rules; they are not yet Codex rules. But because Europe has the dominant voice in Codex, it is quite likely that these same standards will be embraced by Codex. Why not? Even the US government, as presently represented by the anti-supplement FDA, would readily go along with these standards.
The AAHF suggests that the FDA's judgment is swayed by the fact that it depends so heavily on drug approval fees, and it also takes the view that unapproved supplements are competing with the approved drugs, even though absolutely no health claims by supplement producers are allowed.
In other words, we think that the FDA has been captured by commercial drug interests, and that the FDA would welcome a chance to use Codex to shut down the supplement industry as we know it.
I've seen evidence to suggest that this is a valid possibility.
There's so much more to this, but something every person who eats food should consider and pay attention to.
Untested food additives show estrogentic properties
Food may contain environmental estrogens
A discovery that two commonly used food additives are estrogenic has led scientists to suspect that other ingredients added to the food supply may be capable of altering hormones. The FDA, however, doesn't require testing.
This article is copyrighted, so providing the summary and link only.
I know it's a bit dramatic, but this kind of stuff reminds me of the movie "Children of Men".
UCS article on Bioplastics
March 2009
Read this issue of Greentips online
Unlike typical plastics made from crude oil, “bioplastics” are often made from plant matter such as corn starch, potato starch, cane sugar, and soy protein. A potentially renewable alternative to petroleum-based plastics would have the long-term benefits of reducing global warming pollution and our dependence on fossil fuels, but do bioplastics fit the bill? As they become more ubiquitous—in the form of grocery bags and disposable plates, food containers, and cutlery—numerous concerns have been raised about their true value:
- Bioplastics are designed to be composted, not recycled. The plant-based material will actually contaminate the recycling process if not separated from conventional plastics such as soda bottles and milk jugs.
- Home composting may not be an option. Some bioplastics cannot be broken down by the bacteria in our backyards; polyethylene (PE) made from cane sugar is one example. Only bioplastics that are fully biodegradable will break down in a home compost pile, and it could still take up to two years for certain items (e.g., forks and spoons). The rest require the high heat and humidity of an industrial composting plant—of which there are only about 100 in the country, and not all collect waste.
- Plants grown for bioplastics have negative impacts of their own. Bioplastics are often produced from genetically modified food crops such as corn and soybeans, a practice that carries a high risk of contaminating our food supply. Also, corn and soybean producers typically apply large amounts of chemical pesticides and fertilizers that pollute our air and water. To compound matters, the growth of the bioplastics and biofuels industries (both of which currently rely on food crops as their raw material) increases the demand for crops and the impact of agriculture worldwide.
Environmental advocates are calling for bioplastic production based on renewable crops (such as native wild grasses) grown without chemicals. Bioplastics could also be developed from agricultural waste. Until then, what’s a consumer to do?
- Look for the “Compostable” logo. The Biodegradable Products Institute identifies products appropriate for municipal and commercial composting facilities. To find facilities in your state, see the Related Resources.
- Opt for reusable or recycled instead. When you can’t use metal cutlery or ceramic dishes, look for recycled, dishwasher-safe products that can be recycled once they’re no longer usable.
WOOT NY!!!
NYC PASSES PLASTIC BAG RECYCLING BILL
Last week, New York City took a giant step forward in the fight against plastic. New York's City Council passed a bill requiring large stores and retail chains to collect and recycle plastic shopping bags. According to a New York Times report: "New York is by far the largest American city to enact so broad a measure to limit the environmental impact of the bags. Altogether, each year the country is estimated to use 86 billion bags, which end up blowing down city streets, or tangled in the stomachs of whales, sea turtles and birds, or buried in landfills where they enjoy free rent for 1,000 years."
Other cities like Melbourne and San Francisco have banned bags outright. San Francisco was the first city in North America to ban non-recyclable and non-biodegradable bags made from petroleum products. Africa has moved toward a continent-wide plastic bag ban, and just last week, China's cabinet issued a directive banning their production, prohibiting stores from handing out free plastic bags after June 1st and imposing fees on their usage. People in China use up to 3 billion plastic bags daily! Help keep the momentum going here in the United States and just say no to plastic bags!
Kitchen Plastic: Easy Greening
Number 3 is polyvinyl chloride (PVC), also known as vinyl. PVC has garnered the moniker “the toxic plastic” for the presence of DEHA—one of several plasticizers (softeners) used in its production. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, long-term DEHA exposure has the potential to cause: Reduced body weight and bone mass; damage to liver and testes; and cancer. The manufacture and incineration of PVC also releases carcinogenic dioxins into the environment and food chain. Although PVC is not the most common plastic used for food storage containers, some are made from it and it is often used in plastic wrap to improve performance.
Recycling code number 7 includes several plastic types (it’s the catchall “other” category—see tips below) but it is predominantly polycarbonate. The problem with polycarbonate is that it harbors bisphenol A (BPA). Studies have shown that BPA damages the reproductive systems of lab animals by interfering with the effects of reproductive hormones and has other serious health effects. BPA's capacity to cause these stems from its ability to mimic the human hormone estrogen—it has been linked to prostate and mammary gland cancers, early onset of puberty and reproductive-organ defects.
As might be expected, given the strength of the plastic industry, there is controversy. Although there have been more than 100 studies showing BPA to be a concern, the plastics industry says it is harmless. The FDA admits that “substances used to make plastics can leach into food,” but they maintain that the levels are safe. Safe?! Yes, leaching petroleum by-products and toxic chemicals in your food are safe—don’t worry! Now why doesn’t that sound right? If, like me, you find the FDA a rather lackadaisical regulator, why not follow these tips for safer plastic use? (There is also that little environmental issue with plastic to keep in mind.) And while some may want to skip the plastic-food relationship altogether, it is a hard habit to break. Many of these tips don’t exclude the use of plastic, but rather offer the safest options.
1. Know your plastics. Plastic items are marked with a resin identification coding system (the number surrounded by arrows), which stand for:
1—polyethyelene terephthalate (PETE)
2—high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
3—vinyl, polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
4—low-density polyethylene (LDPE)
5—polypropylene (PP)
6—polystyrene (PS)
7—other (includes polycarbonate, acrylic, polylactic acid, fiberglass)
2. When you need to use plastic, these are the safer choices to use with food: 1, 2, 4 and 5.
3. Learn to recognize, and then avoid, polycarbonate (number 7) for food usage. Polycarbonate plastics are hard and clear. Common items made from this BPA-containing plastic are food storage containers, baby bottles, water bottles, bowls and tableware. (And the lining inside food and drink cans, by the way.)
4. If you don’t get rid of all of your plastic, at least retire old plastic containers, especially those that are heavily worn or scratched. Older plastics tend to leach increasing amounts of toxins as they age. Use them to organize and store non-food items.
5. Be careful of serving and storing hot foods or foods made with fats or oils in plastic containers. These foods more readily facilitate the transfer of plastic toxins.
6. Never microwave foods in plastic containers. “Microwave safe” means the container won’t melt or warp, but doesn’t mean it won’t leach. Heating plastics increases the potential for leaching of chemicals into your food.
7. Never microwave food in yogurt tubs, take-out bowls, or other one-time use containers. These containers can warp or melt, possibly causing harmful chemicals to migrate into the food.
8. Avoid using plastic sandwich bags or plastic wrap products.
9. If you must use plastic wrap, make sure it is a brand free of both BPA and PVC. Ziploc, Glad and Saran are promoted as being free of BPA and PVC—but remember that these plastics live for 1,000 years…in our landfills.
10. Avoid deli-wrap and similar generic packaging since you can’t ascertain the plastic type used. When sliced cheese and meats are sold in plastic bags and/or plastic deli wrap, transfer them as soon as possible to unbleached wax paper or a safe container.
11. Remember that if you are pregnant or nursing, BPA chemicals are passed through your bloodstream directly to your baby.
12. Instead of mixing petroleum (i.e. plastic) with your food, use inert alternatives such as glass and ceramic rather than plastic food storage containers. Reusing jars is a win-win—and you can often find glass storage containers at flea markets and thrift shops. Or simply store food in bowls covered with a plate.
Try alternatives like these:
Wrap-N-Mat machine-washable sandwich wrappers are a great replacement for plastic baggies.
Crate and Barrel’s Refrigerator Dish
Toxic Burden (the hidden cost of luxury and excess)
It's pretty easy to see how plastic pollutes our environment, but not as easy to see what the impact is inside of our bodies. There is mounting evidence that industrialization of goods has risks that outweigh the perceived "benefits".
Flame Retardants Linked to Hyperactivity, Dioxin Linked to Immune System Impairment
CDC and Johns Hopkins researchers have now documented the toxic body burden that every American carries in his or her tissues. What role do environmental toxins play in the biochemical reactions that drive the human body? Autoimmune disease, cancer, neurodegenerative disease, and even diabetes are frequently mentioned as being caused or exacerbated by environmental toxins.
A New Scientist study has found that phthalates (substances added to plastics to increase their flexibility)—which are too minute to cause a reaction individually—when combined can suppress hormones like testosterone in those exposed.
The current issue of NeuroToxicology reports that a common flame retardant found in house dust and now in our bodies causes hyperactivity and behavior adjustment difficulties that worsen with age in laboratory animals.
Additionally, for the first time researchers have found that laboratory animals exposed to dioxin in early life have a diminished ability to fight infections such as the flu even later in life.
(Read more about these excerpts from the link above)
Bisphenol A
Hmmm
Carbon Conscious Consumer's Pledge Prizes
Actual view from condo
Prizes:
As a reward for getting other people involved in this campaign you could win...
- Grand Prize: A week long at a ski resort condo in Sun Valley
- Second Prize: $800 worth of eco-friendly rugs from FLOR
- Third Prize: Two jackets from NAU, valued at $330
- Everyone who signs up for this month's challenge will receive a 25 percent off coupon for water bottles from Nubius Organics.
Seriously?
Is this a joke?? How many people have to stop using bottled water to offset the carbon and petroleum use of just the two flights to and from Idaho for the grand prize winner? They encourage at most a few people to stop using a relatively low-impact product by encouraging them to patronize the airline industry, one of the highest contributors to pollution and global warming? Then of course, there's all the emissions involved in transporting a few silly rugs and jackets about.
If you want to "do your part", buy locally produced goods, trade your SUV in for something more efficient, and don't fly. These gimmicks look like a good way to get people to look at advertisements while making them think they're accomplishing something.
And for the record, I drink bottled water sometimes because even tap water from other parts of the country can't possibly be as noxious as the barely treated goop coming out of my tap which is occasionally subjected to boil advisories. That's a whole different crusade though.
Yarrr
People are so dumb. I guess they want to get it good and broke before they start fixing it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071204/ap_on_re_as/bali_saving_the_planet
Re: Seriously?
LOL... You make some good points.
I'm not in this really for the prizes personally... I posted this to encourage people to think about the topic.
I don't have any objection to using bottled water sparingly - such as for the reasons you list in your post. I think sometimes people don't realize what they're spending financially on that cost - and in an analysis of my own similar behavior, actually found it surprisingly more cost effective to install a reverse osmosis unit on my kitchen tap.
I must say I have to disagree with the comment that bottled water is a "relatively low-impact product". Even when compared with the impact of an occasional airline flight. It's because it seems innocuous that the cost/impact of using it slips by our awareness. The bottom line is that plastic waste is a huge landfill problem, as well as being part of the petroleum problem since all plastic is made of it.
What's the more disturbing to me is the amount of waste ... not made by just one person, but by billions of persons changing their habits to include bottled water into their daily regiment.
To get an accurate picture of this - click here and go to "Plastic Bottles" - they zoom in on this picture:
This artwork depicts two million plastic beverage bottles, the number used in the US every five minutes.
It's true that this is every type of beverage, not just water... the point about water is that it is available in other places for less money - so why develop a destructive habit when there are alternatives?
Thinking about the topic
That picture sure does make me think about it.
My wife calls herself "crunchy", some term she picked up around like-minded people. She eats organic when she can, thinks about the environment, all that stuff. We'd be using cloth diapers except that I refused to carry around a bag full of stink while in public. She still uses cloth while at home and buys diapers from "7th Generation" that are supposed to be as good for the environment as a disposable could ever be.
Me, I'm not so crunchy. I eat fast food sometimes, although a lot less than I used to. I like greasy food, and I like big portions. I drive 85 MPH so I can get up a little later in the morning instead of getting up a little earlier and driving 70 to reduce my own emissions. I do think about the environment, but I've got definite limits set on how much I'll be inconvenienced over it. That said, I still do nothing "just because I can" and I dislike how our society has become so overly wasteful.
At our house, we have a Culligan filtration system inline with our ice maker and to a special spigot on our sink. We buy the occasional bottle of water, drink it, and then refill it from our own tap until it starts getting funky. We also have more permanent water containers, but sometimes those aren't as easy to get around with, and, by necessity, we always think twice about buying anything "permanent". My wife got one of those bottles made of completely indestructible plastic. The problem is, the cap is made out of regular plastic. The first day she had it, our dog chewed through the plastic that holds the top on. "Permanent", shah.
I get what you're saying about the impact of plastic bottles. I was thinking along different lines. When I do think about the environment, such as when I see topics about carbon usage, global warming is what's at the forefront for me, and plastic bottles really don't amount to much in that. During the aftermath of 9/11, when all air travel over the United States was halted, the general air quality across the country was significantly higher. The fact that just a couple of days without airplanes made such a huge difference is what got a lot of fingers pointed at the airline industry.
You're not going to get everyone to stop drinking bottled water or soda or anything else. Nor are you going to get everyone to stop using airlines. However, if I were to pick an industry to try getting people to use less of, the airlines would be it. On a related note, people also don't realize just how much goes into general transportation needs of the products they buy. Sure, we can talk about a bottle of water, but we should also consider the petroleum consumed in delivering it. Virtually every product in this country has spent some time on a tractor-trailer. I don't know what impact those emissions are having, but they need to be considered.
I don't know the truth of it, but I've heard that in the recycling arena, the American people are pretty much doing their part. The recycling facilities can't keep up, so what Americans set aside to be recycled that can't be handled is shipped overseas to be put into other peoples' landfills. It could be an unfounded rumor, though.
Earth's 8th Continent
This made me ill thinking about it...
Excerpts from an article Earth's Eighth Continent :
Located in the Pacific Ocean between California and Hawaii and measuring in at roughly twice the size of Texas, this elusive mass is home to hundreds of species of marine life and is constantly expanding. It has tripled in size since the middle of the 1990s and could grow tenfold in the next decade.
Although no official title has been given to the mass yet, a popular label thus far has been "The Great Pacific Garbage Patch."
As suggested by the name, the island is almost entirely comprises human-made trash. It currently weighs approximately 3.5 million tons with a concentration of 3.34 million pieces of garbage per square kilometer, 80 per cent of which is plastic.
According to Chris Parry of the California Coastal Commission, regrettably little can be done to clean up the Patch, although many urge that a decreased reliance on plastic is the first step.
"At this point," said Parry, "cleaning it up isn't an option . . . it's just going to get bigger as our reliance on plastics continues."
"The long-term solution is to stop producing as much plastic products at home and change our consumption habits."
Cleaning up the Patch will likely cost billions of dollars and, as an approximation, be more difficult than vacuuming every inch of the United States. The plastic and garbage reach more than 30 metres down into the ocean and a great number of organisms would be destroyed in the process.
So far, no country has so much as proposed a solution, presumably because no nation wishes to claim responsibility.
Even if all plastic usage were to stop immediately, future geologists would be able to clearly mark the stratum designating the 20th and 21st century by an indelible layer of plastic coating the world's oceans.
Male impotence risk from bisphenol A exposure - Study
In a five-year study on 634 workers in factories in China:
"Researchers measured sexual function and, after adjusting for age, education, marital status, current smoking status, a history of chronic diseases and exposure to other chemicals, and employment history, found the BPA-exposed workers had a significantly higher risk of sexual dysfunction compared to the unexposed workers.
...
He added the study could have implications beyond male impotence as this could be a “sensitive early indicator for adverse BPA effects than other disease endpoints that are more difficult to study, such as cancer or metabolic diseases”. "