I don't think so. Firstly, these protective glasses you wear are made of PC so again Bisphenol-A, secondly, this is a suit for lower class clean room. It does not protect against any vapors. You will only be protected against skin contact toxicity. Now if you would wear a full body suit sealing you completely off from the environment then it is even worse: the window will be made of PVC (if elastic) or again PC or PMMA. PVC you already know - your favourite phtalate plasticizers and PMMA is made of methyl methacrylate described in the data safety sheets this way: Hazardous according to criteria of NOHSC. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE. DANGEROUS GOODS. R11 Highly flammable. R37/38 Irritating to respiratory system and skin. R43 May cause sensitisation by skin contact. Even worse things can be expected in the body part of the suit. It is very likely to be sealed with polyurethanes, and polyurethanes are made with isocyanates. A member of this family (methyl isocyanate) is responsible for the Bophal disaster. Side products from the reaction of isocyanates with water, and you are ++80% made of water, can be also cancerogenic / teratogenic.rajagainstthemachine wrote:This is me playing my fav cd at home
Thanks taxico, very timely finding.taxico wrote:NTP's report on styrene (background included):
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/styrene_ ... 5B1%5D.pdf
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelft ... tyrene.pdf
or we can look at the aptly named Plastic News:
Study concludes styrene exposure not carcinogenic
Published: February 14, 2013 11:28 am ET
Updated: February 14, 2013 11:31 am ET
(3) - I doubt it is any significantrajagainstthemachine wrote:What I really want to highlight was, given the availability of natural products like Jute, Palm, coir, banana leaves,bamboo for the manufacture of bags, food containers should be encouraged as usage of these products give the following distinct advantages.
1. provide employment for many poor people who can start cottage industries. [ this already happens in India a lot]
2. the decomposition of natural products is much quicker than say styrene/plastics
3. the impact on wildlife caused by mindless use of plastics can be avoided.
as many animals choke and die eating these products,
I would prefer to eat my food served from non-disposable containers, glass made if possible. Now, for the whole rest, I think it is not that straight forward. I am talking about the point earlier made by 3Wan and I am going to expand it a bit. Degradability is only one aspect and all together what should be considered is the whole life of the product.rajagainstthemachine wrote:Let me ask you a question, would you prefer to eat your food served to you in a polystyrene container thats going to possibly take years to disintegrate or would you prefer to be served to you in a biodegradable palm container which would provide the same quality as the polystyrene and then decompose in 5-10 days?
I knew you would say something like this. So I posted the pic to lead you onx9200 wrote: I don't think so. Firstly, these protective glasses you wear are made of PC so again Bisphenol-A, secondly, this is a suit for lower class clean room. It does not protect against any vapors. You will only be protected against skin contact toxicity. Now if you would wear a full body suit sealing you completely off from the environment then it is even worse: the window will be made of PVC (if elastic) or again PC or PMMA. PVC you already know - your favourite phtalate plasticizers and PMMA is made of methyl methacrylate described in the data safety sheets this way: Hazardous according to criteria of NOHSC. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE. DANGEROUS GOODS. R11 Highly flammable. R37/38 Irritating to respiratory system and skin. R43 May cause sensitisation by skin contact. Even worse things can be expected in the body part of the suit. It is very likely to be sealed with polyurethanes, and polyurethanes are made with isocyanates. A member of this family (methyl isocyanate) is responsible for the Bophal disaster. Side products from the reaction of isocyanates with water, and you are ++80% made of water, can be also cancerogenic / teratogenic.
[..]
And so on and so forth.
Got the message?
Banana, palm, coconut are tropical plants found in plenty over South Asia and ASEAN, and we're talking using the plant by products not even the plants themselvesx9200 wrote:(3) - I doubt it is any significantrajagainstthemachine wrote:What I really want to highlight was, given the availability of natural products like Jute, Palm, coir, banana leaves,bamboo for the manufacture of bags, food containers should be encouraged as usage of these products give the following distinct advantages.
1. provide employment for many poor people who can start cottage industries. [ this already happens in India a lot]
2. the decomposition of natural products is much quicker than say styrene/plastics
3. the impact on wildlife caused by mindless use of plastics can be avoided.
as many animals choke and die eating these products,
oh ya? watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M9t2fm__K0
(1,2) - I will try to answer below.
I would prefer to eat my food served from non-disposable containers, glass made if possible. Now, for the whole rest, I think it is not that straight forward. I am talking about the point earlier made by 3Wan and I am going to expand it a bit. Degradability is only one aspect and all together what should be considered is the whole life of the product.rajagainstthemachine wrote:Let me ask you a question, would you prefer to eat your food served to you in a polystyrene container thats going to possibly take years to disintegrate or would you prefer to be served to you in a biodegradable palm container which would provide the same quality as the polystyrene and then decompose in 5-10 days?
Questions like these:
- what is the eco-impact of getting the raw materials? (huge plantations of a single specie are not too good neither).
- what is more eco friendly to manufacture? (I am not that sure if doing something different, here natural fibre processing, more basic way is always more eco friendly than doing something more complicated high tech with all the stringent standards - i.e. in a PS plant. These cottage industries will surely pollute your already polluted environment)
- is it easier to recycle or easier to degrade?
+ what is more cost effective?
+ what is more eco friendly?
Some further could likely be added.
From this perspective it is not really that completely obvious what would be better to do. There are whole research areas dealing with product life-cycle, carbon foot print, sustainability manufacturing etc. The only obvious solution is to limit the use of disposable materials.
Polystyrene is recycled. That is surely preferable to something that is thrown away. Right?rajagainstthemachine wrote:Let me ask you a question, would you prefer to eat your food served to you in a polystyrene container thats going to possibly take years to disintegrate or would you prefer to be served to you in a biodegradable palm container which would provide the same quality as the polystyrene and then decompose in 5-10 days?
- Why is 'cottage industry a good thing to have'?rajagainstthemachine wrote: Banana, palm, coconut are tropical plants found in plenty over South Asia and ASEAN, and we're talking using the plant by products not even the plants themselves. I am aware of single specie or monoculture impact and its not a good thing. cottage industry is a good thing to have, relying on local produce from overseas [ I know this isn't practical in Singapore ] has a large carbon footprint. Sometimes even buying local produce means there is no need for extensive packaging. There are several ways an individual can reduce plastic consumption and pollute less
The end result is we leave the planet a bit safer/cleaner for our future generations
JR8 wrote:Polystyrene is recycled. That is surely preferable to something that is thrown away. Right?rajagainstthemachine wrote:Let me ask you a question, would you prefer to eat your food served to you in a polystyrene container thats going to possibly take years to disintegrate or would you prefer to be served to you in a biodegradable palm container which would provide the same quality as the polystyrene and then decompose in 5-10 days?
lol come back to this discussion when you have a better point than that.
- Why is 'cottage industry a good thing to have'?rajagainstthemachine wrote: Banana, palm, coconut are tropical plants found in plenty over South Asia and ASEAN, and we're talking using the plant by products not even the plants themselves. I am aware of single specie or monoculture impact and its not a good thing. cottage industry is a good thing to have, relying on local produce from overseas [ I know this isn't practical in Singapore ] has a large carbon footprint. Sometimes even buying local produce means there is no need for extensive packaging. There are several ways an individual can reduce plastic consumption and pollute less
The end result is we leave the planet a bit safer/cleaner for our future generations
lol spread of economic wealth? employment to poor people ?
case in point : weaving of bamboo mats for bamboo ply is done by tribals in North East India using locally available bamboo. they make money and can sustain themselves.
- What is a 'carbon footprint', and why should anyone care?
buying an apple from USA when an apple grown in a local country is available is an example. that apple carries with it a carbon footprint
i.e the amount of fuel required to transport that item,
you don't have to care, I do.
- You advocate importing palm goods from abroad and then say 'relying on local produce from overseas has a large carbon footprint'. I'm lost here.
well when i mentioned "importing palm goods from abroad" i was referring to Singapore specifically.
but for a larger country the local produce concept holds
- You refer to plastic 'consumption'. Do you yourself recycle plastics?
when you buy stuff from the market and they pack it in a plastic bag you obviously are a consumer of the bag too? yes?![]()
- 'Leaving the planet safer/cleaner for the next generation'. Are we the first and only generation who are so enlightened, so noble, and so considerate, and if so why might that be?
well, someone should start. why are you so antagonistic if I may ask?
Not having any wars to pre-occupy the citizens, do you think politicians have created a false-war: 'The war on rubbish', in your own home every day?
I'd rather wage a war with actual garbage than deal with the real garbage of politics.
Ok, so no monoculture, then it is fine but what about the whole rest? The fact that somebody is processing a natural product does not mean that the technology is natural, clean and eco-friendly. Take as an example the early paper industry. Even if not bleached, it gave hell lot of pollution.rajagainstthemachine wrote:Banana, palm, coconut are tropical plants found in plenty over South Asia and ASEAN, and we're talking using the plant by products not even the plants themselvesx9200 wrote:(3) - I doubt it is any significantrajagainstthemachine wrote: 3. the impact on wildlife caused by mindless use of plastics can be avoided.
as many animals choke and die eating these products,
oh ya? watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M9t2fm__K0
Sorry, I don't want to sound like an emotionless bastard but it is just another propaganda video with nothing concrete in it. Of course it happens and appeals very much to the hearts but in the scale of the population is marginal. Very likely much more birds and mammals die in road kill accidents. Would you oppose to use the cars? It is all about balancing the positive and negative effects and the 'plastics' give tremendous benefits.
(1,2) - I will try to answer below.
I would prefer to eat my food served from non-disposable containers, glass made if possible. Now, for the whole rest, I think it is not that straight forward. I am talking about the point earlier made by 3Wan and I am going to expand it a bit. Degradability is only one aspect and all together what should be considered is the whole life of the product.rajagainstthemachine wrote:Let me ask you a question, would you prefer to eat your food served to you in a polystyrene container thats going to possibly take years to disintegrate or would you prefer to be served to you in a biodegradable palm container which would provide the same quality as the polystyrene and then decompose in 5-10 days?
Questions like these:
- what is the eco-impact of getting the raw materials? (huge plantations of a single specie are not too good neither).
- what is more eco friendly to manufacture? (I am not that sure if doing something different, here natural fibre processing, more basic way is always more eco friendly than doing something more complicated high tech with all the stringent standards - i.e. in a PS plant. These cottage industries will surely pollute your already polluted environment)
- is it easier to recycle or easier to degrade?
+ what is more cost effective?
+ what is more eco friendly?
Some further could likely be added.
From this perspective it is not really that completely obvious what would be better to do. There are whole research areas dealing with product life-cycle, carbon foot print, sustainability manufacturing etc. The only obvious solution is to limit the use of disposable materials.
I am aware of single specie or monoculture impact and its not a good thing.
cottage industry is a good thing to have, relying on local produce from overseas [ I know this isn't practical in Singapore ] has a large carbon footprint.
Sometimes even buying local produce means there is no need for extensive packaging.
There are several ways an individual can reduce plastic consumption and pollute less
The end result is we leave the planet a bit safer/cleaner for our future generations
The birds and animals that die in road kill cases do not alter the food chain.x9200 wrote:Ok, so no monoculture, then it is fine but what about the whole rest? The fact that somebody is processing a natural product does not mean that the technology is natural, clean and eco-friendly. Take as an example the early paper industry. Even if not bleached, it gave hell lot of pollution.rajagainstthemachine wrote:Banana, palm, coconut are tropical plants found in plenty over South Asia and ASEAN, and we're talking using the plant by products not even the plants themselvesx9200 wrote: (3) - I doubt it is any significant
oh ya? watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M9t2fm__K0
Sorry, I don't want to sound like an emotionless bastard but it is just another propaganda video with nothing concrete in it. Of course it happens and appeals very much to the hearts but in the scale of the population is marginal. Very likely much more birds and mammals die in road kill accidents. Would you oppose to use the cars? It is all about balancing the positive and negative effects and the 'plastics' give tremendous benefits.
(1,2) - I will try to answer below.
I would prefer to eat my food served from non-disposable containers, glass made if possible. Now, for the whole rest, I think it is not that straight forward. I am talking about the point earlier made by 3Wan and I am going to expand it a bit. Degradability is only one aspect and all together what should be considered is the whole life of the product.
Questions like these:
- what is the eco-impact of getting the raw materials? (huge plantations of a single specie are not too good neither).
- what is more eco friendly to manufacture? (I am not that sure if doing something different, here natural fibre processing, more basic way is always more eco friendly than doing something more complicated high tech with all the stringent standards - i.e. in a PS plant. These cottage industries will surely pollute your already polluted environment)
- is it easier to recycle or easier to degrade?
+ what is more cost effective?
+ what is more eco friendly?
Some further could likely be added.
From this perspective it is not really that completely obvious what would be better to do. There are whole research areas dealing with product life-cycle, carbon foot print, sustainability manufacturing etc. The only obvious solution is to limit the use of disposable materials.
I am aware of single specie or monoculture impact and its not a good thing.
cottage industry is a good thing to have, relying on local produce from overseas [ I know this isn't practical in Singapore ] has a large carbon footprint.
Sometimes even buying local produce means there is no need for extensive packaging.
There are several ways an individual can reduce plastic consumption and pollute less
The end result is we leave the planet a bit safer/cleaner for our future generations
A modern plastic plant has all the filters, all up to date machinery and the technology to minimize the wastes production as well as waste handling within strictly monitored limits. This is surely not the case for the cottage industry. I am not familiar with the process but they will likely need some water and some mechanical power (petrol driven?), thermal treatment (?), they will produce some waste etc. While I don't have doubts it will be good for local ('cottage') economy I am rather sceptical it will be more environmentally friendly than any modern 'plastic' plant. This may pretty much level down all the potential benefits for the use of such materials.
Actually, this is what I was thinking about (what is the cottage industry) and I still expect it to be more polluting (all together per unit of the final product) than any of modern plastic plant. They will release wastes with no purification or burn them out in some bonfires. They will use some primitive machinery for processing that will further pollute the surrounding. Each and every individual as compared to one big plant with everything under control.rajagainstthemachine wrote:The birds and animals that die in road kill cases do not alter the food chain.x9200 wrote:Ok, so no monoculture, then it is fine but what about the whole rest? The fact that somebody is processing a natural product does not mean that the technology is natural, clean and eco-friendly. Take as an example the early paper industry. Even if not bleached, it gave hell lot of pollution.
A modern plastic plant has all the filters, all up to date machinery and the technology to minimize the wastes production as well as waste handling within strictly monitored limits. This is surely not the case for the cottage industry. I am not familiar with the process but they will likely need some water and some mechanical power (petrol driven?), thermal treatment (?), they will produce some waste etc. While I don't have doubts it will be good for local ('cottage') economy I am rather sceptical it will be more environmentally friendly than any modern 'plastic' plant. This may pretty much level down all the potential benefits for the use of such materials.
the animals which die to environmental pollution however affect the food chain.
eg: The great Indian Vulture population was decimated after feeding on carcasses of veterinary animals injected with diclofenac sodium which is a painkiller
that video about albatrosses dying in large numbers due to plastic is another case in point
The American Eagle numbers are declining due to DDT contamination
I could go on but these deaths pose a far serious problem than roadkill
Do you have any statistical data showing how in case of the 'plastics' the food chain is affected?
Perhaps I could define what a cottage industry does.
There is very little dependence on electricity and water. It involves more human resources.
They are often run out of a persons home
I know you are probably going to argue with me regarding the economics and the size/scalability of the whole thing and I will agree with you its not as simple as the suggestions I make. It's more reasonable to assume that these industries can cater for neary by towns and villages than on a global scale
rajagainstthemachine wrote: The American Eagle numbers are declining due to DDT contamination
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest