SMF Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 JorgetLobo. You are making too much of a big deal out of a simple misunderstanding. I interpreted "crap" from cr++ because of the tone and wording of the post and because you all were having such a hard time with it. I thought it was an amusing observation. I would like to point out that it was you who started talking about scientific credentials. My background as a practicing research scientists gives me no garbage expertise, but it very definitely does give me the ability to look at some internet site and quickly determine if it is crap or not. I already mentioned this but it is quite simple- If the article gives the links and references to further study the phenomenon in question and verify the statements that have been made, then it is good popular science. This can be likened to the references cited in a peer reviewed research article. If you were unable to easily get to the, so called, "garbage patch" and the underlying research from my link, then I am amazed. SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Can existing plastics be recycled into more permanent plastic containers whose degradation is so slow that the containers could be sterilized and re-used? If so, I see this as having the double benefit of stopping waste-dumping and providing an impetus to collect current bottles to make those into permanently re-usable ones. I think having a high deposit/refund for the bottles would be sufficient to make sure they get returned to collection stations, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 Lemur. Recycling can be done with glass now. I think that the problem with reusing plastic containers is that, at least for food products, they are not as impervious as glass and it is difficult to get them clean after they have been used. I can certainly verify this with my trial of plastic containers for fermenters in my brewing hobby. I had major problems with bacterial infection after only a few uses, even with careful sterilization. Soft drink and beer manufacturers used to recycle bottles by collecting and washing them but this is no longer done, presumably because the expense of collection and the energy of washing the glass is greater than making it from scratch. What is even more amazing to me is that it is also apparently cheaper to make new glass from sand, and new plastic from oil, than it is to recycle the material that has already been made. Until I get an explanation for this, especially as energy costs increase, I remain very suspicious of the whole enterprise. SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippo Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) Whew, glad the tone has changed here a bit. No use in becoming agitated ....we're all fellow members here trying to find answers to the screwed up world we are prisoners in. Sorry I did not reply in time, people. Just got back and was hoping to get back into the plastic thing. First, yes, any chem 0101 student knows Cr hexavalent is of course, Cr+6. Cr++, well, I shoulda maybe typed Cr** (Oh, Cr+3 , the trivalent is of course, no where near as cancer causing as the hexa...). Just trying to prevent using foul language, thats all....LOL Still, sorry as I kinda am a culprit in having added confusion. But, no big deal, eh? OK, so you asked me to find my reference to this "garbage patch" study from that prof at Univ of Plymouth. AND, a fellow member asked incredulously, about the reference on plastic sh** in skin care products for refined women that pollutes water in the ocean. OK, gimme some time........... Edited March 28, 2011 by pippo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Maybe one day we'll have semi-sentient solar powered droid ships just floating around maintaining our oceans, fronds lazily dangling down into the water with nano-ends collecting plastics, toxins, and rubbish and turning them into useful products or nutrients in the central digester? For that matter, why not the same on land with big droid-tanks, bikes, or pods gently rolling/walking through jungles or across planes collecting rubbish each outing, and then returning home each night to dump stuff and refuel/recharge/whatever. To daydream about other possible robot-gardener / ecologist roles, see the Eco-bot thread. With population growing and industrial efficiency increasing with a need for energy conservation, I would guess that it's going to become increasingly popular for humans to do all sorts of labor like this just to give them something to do while they are consuming the minimum energy possible. It would be as good an excuse as any to migrate around by wind/solar and trawl for trash while en route to an interesting destination. I can remember growing up in the sixties in a world which was still relatively "plastic free". Do you remember when foods were actually packaged in glass, paper and cardboard? Do you also remember when the paper and cardboard was thicker back then? I can still remember as a boy looking at one of those "foam" cups made from polystyrene and crumbling it, it was in the late sixties, wondering what the heck it was made of! The one litre soda bottle was made from glass a long time ago, for which I got twenty cents for when I collected them from the side of the road and brought them into the corner store.oshawa criminal lawyer like these or older yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippo Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) Lemur. Recycling can be done with glass now. I think that the problem with reusing plastic containers is that, at least for food products, they are not as impervious as glass and it is difficult to get them clean after they have been used. I can certainly verify this with my trial of plastic containers for fermenters in my brewing hobby. I had major problems with bacterial infection after only a few uses, even with careful sterilization. Soft drink and beer manufacturers used to recycle bottles by collecting and washing them but this is no longer done, presumably because the expense of collection and the energy of washing the glass is greater than making it from scratch. What is even more amazing to me is that it is also apparently cheaper to make new glass from sand, and new plastic from oil, than it is to recycle the material that has already been made. Until I get an explanation for this, especially as energy costs increase, I remain very suspicious of the whole enterprise. SM Right, SM, I would just add plastics and alum cans are worth recycling, but like you said, glass is not. Glass is sand/sod carbonate. But plastics are of course, petrol, and petrol is kinda up there in price. Also, aluminum is electricity intensive, so its worth it (most alum plants are near hydro power plants that provide cheap power like Alcoa in N NY(niagra)..... Can you please give us the reference for the "garbage patch" study you mentioned? Regulatory prohibition of plastic bags is merely a gesture - effectively an extension of environmentalism. Every religion has its sins. How are skin care products polluting the oceans - man, i gotta hear this one! cr++? What are you talking about? Chromium? Hexavalent chromium salts are already regulated but chrmium is an element. It's kinda hard to ban an element. Jorge, heres something to start with: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DBu7KFSsgNAJ:www.plymouth.ac.uk/staff/rcthompson+m Hes the guy that did much research in the Gyre. Also did studies in the waters of the Shetland Islands, Scotland, Iceland, etc. Its all over books on the subject. Now, gotta find that reference on that lady's shampoo plastic stuff.......dang, where did I read that(!) Edited March 29, 2011 by pippo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippo Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 OK, heres more on the exfoliants in skin care products that are manufactured by the many tens of thousands of gallons: Mark Browne, a then PHD candidate at the Univ of Plymouth (they both focused on the same project) determined these brands- Neova Body Smoother, SkinCeuticals Body Polish, DDF Strawberry Almond Body Polish, Pond's Fresh Start, Colgate Icy Blast, Neutrogena and Clearasil - most of these have gone the way of adding plastic polymer "bits" for the purpose of scrobbing "unwanted ugly " skin cells from your body. Poly ethylene beads/granules. Shocking as HE**. This "shampoo" product goes down the drain, ending up in the oceans. Simple as that. Jellyfish have been known to ingest this junk, believing them to be plankton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge1907 Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) Exfolliant plastic (assume HDPE) is so environmentally trivial a matter as to be a total waste of time as we address issues. They are not made as fluid - the "gallons" are suspensions - usually aqueous. I'm not aware of data saying they go into oceans. As particulates down the drain waste going into municipal water treatments systems, they should end up in sludge. Even if discharged 100% into surface waters that eventually arrive at marine environments, the dilution factor willl be profound. Browne's alleged work (I've been unable to find anything but his news releases and interview comments) apparently exposed marine invertebrates to particulates and noted uptake - a bit fuzzy on effect. Even looking at these brands (and other exfolliant products) on your store shelves would reveal the tiny relative amount. What are the data that says exfolliant material exists in the environment at an environmentally significantly level? Edited March 31, 2011 by jorge1907 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippo Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 Fine, jeorge. Trivial matter and a waste of time. Sad thing is- you are right. This is a waste of time discussing exfoliants as well as the other issues here. I said above "skin care products that are made in the tens of thousands of gallons", not that the exfoliant polymer ingredient itself is produced then bottled as a 100% pure material in the tens of thousands of gallons. There is a difference. I take it you are not in the manufacturing/formulations sector/industry. No problem, jeorge. Yes, again, you are right- the dilution factor is great. Sure- what the heck, all this junk will eventually get diluted, so theres nothing to be concerned about. "Its a total waste of time as we address other issues". What issues, jeorge? What issues are so important that are discussed here?? And then , what happens to these so called important issues? The fact that you and me blow our time sitting down looking at a monitor cuz we have 15 minutes to waste- that is the waste of time. Like these other "important issues" will be noticed by the real powers that be out there. I know you and me mean well, but face it- NOTHING is going to happen to fix the whole mess. If you believe otherwise, You have to start getting away from pure science, which lives in a vacuum. The same is probably said of all the other multitudes of junk floating in the Gyre-Pacific Garbage Patch. Oh, its only a few bags, whatever. It will be in such a huge ocean..........again the dilution factor You really need to read about Thompson, and the sources of the stuff found in the patch. Heck, Thompson is not the only one who did work on that "patch". Everybody knows about it. I just blew 10-12 minutes typing that post. Going to bed to read a book on Cosmetics Formulations. Maybe catch an episode rerun of Survivorman........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge1907 Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Poor pippo!!! Pity - he wasted his time (again) on HIS subject that has so little merit that even the pippo him or herself admits it's nothing of substance. But pipo's time is likely worthless so its waste is not a concern but a very entertaining rant. My apologies - tens of thousands of gallons of exfoliant cosmetics - not the HDPE exfollant alleged to be a problem. So a small percentage of even that amount - so small of a global scale as to be of vanishing importance - even to pippo. Let me help you - I am in the industry and known that not all exfolliants even use the HDPE about which the aussie activist was whining. Some use microcrystalline waxes. The issue is that resources are wasted on a subject trivial on its face so a publicity-seeking activist can get his name in the press. Invest resources in real issues - not silliness that serve no better purpose than to allow a childish rant of the pippo on a so-called science forum. Got it? Now go watch TV little guy - you're a great help to the universe. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Jorge1907, I think you might want to work in your teaching skills a little. SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JorgeLobo Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 SMF - perhaps you might consider if you have anything of substance to offer. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 SMF - perhaps you might consider if you have anything of substance to offer. ! Moderator Note Stop. NOW. Discuss in a civil fashion or not at all. Do not derail the thread further by discussing this warning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now