Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"The bans should only target things that have plastic-free alternatives, or at least that have less plastic intensive alternatives."

There's also what I call junk plastic products. I'll illustrate with examples. Plastic products that aren't durable and have very short lifespans:

- Plastic storage bins and such that use so little plastic that they break when stacked thus become plastic waste long before they ought to.

- I bought three plastic buckets at the supermarket and the handles fell off two before I got them home. I nevertheless used them only to find that they soon cracked and leaked with normal domestic usage.

(BTW, there's an old galvanized bucket in our family that's well over 80 years old (it belonged to my grandmother), and it's still serviceable (the galvanizing is still intact and it's not rusty).)

- The use of polyethylene for containers, etc. Over time polyethylene leaks its plasticizers to produce a greasy coating on the surface. The polyethylene then hardens and cracks—thus more junk plastic waste. Polyethylene should not be used for such purposes.

Moreover, phthalate plasticizers have been found to have bad effects on human health. Phthalate plasticizers ought to be banned for use in domestic products.

I could go on, there are hundreds more examples.

The plastic waste problem could be fixed quick smart if high taxes were applied on plastic products that were deemed insufficiently durable.

No doubt, manufacturers, penny-pinching cheapskates and greedy profit mongers would cry foul over what's deemed as 'durable'. That's solvable with standards set down by an authoritative standards body.



Polyethylene only rarely contains plasticizers, and it doesn't harden or crack unless continuously exposed to sunlight—neither LDPE, LLDPE, HDPE, nor UHMWPE. It seems like you have your plastics mixed up. Possibly you're thinking of polyvinyl chloride, which does sometimes behave in the way you describe polyethylene describing, but not in all cases.

The plastic buckets I use in my house are food-grade polypropylene 20-liter buckets with hermetically sealing lids. Polypropylene, like polyethylene, does not need plasticizers to remain resilient to impacts; its biggest problem is creep. The handles do sometimes fall off, but they're easy to put back on.


"Polyethylene only rarely contains plasticizers, and it doesn't harden or crack unless continuously exposed to sunlight"

I beg to differ, and I'm familiar with polyethylene (I spent too many years studying o-chem not to know something about it).

I have hundreds of polyethylene storage containers ranging in size from 20 to 80 litres and their ages range from around 20 years old to new. They are stored in rooms with temperatures ranging from 15 to 25°C and an average RH of 55-65%.

They are mostly stored in the dark (lights off) and they mostly contain old paper files although some contain books.

For ages I couldn't figure out where the greasy, almost sticky film was coming from given the rooms are dry and the air is clean. (Mind you at first I didn't give it much thought.)

After washing some to remove the film with just dishwashing liquid they were repacked and several years later the film was back and that's when the brittleness was noticed. Container lids were cracking on the bottom containers in stacks of only four to six high (max height 1.5m).

Note, the washing had no noticeable effect, as containers of a similar vintage that were not washed were also brittle.

When I checked I could easily crack the plastic of older containers with little bending. That wasn't possible with the newer units—they would deform out of shape but not crack—not without a lot of effort.

That's a précis of a much longer story. Incidentally, there were several brands involved and all experienced similar problems with the greasy film.

Note I'm not mixing products either, new units of brand A were compared with old brand A.

I'd suggest my sample size is not insignificant, since the late 1990s I've had around a 1000 of these polyethylene containers and the evidence points to the fact that for this type of product polyethylene of that type is not fit for purpose.

BTW, I ought to let you know I'm familiar with polyethylene from my work in RF engineering. And HDPE and that standard polyethylene does not behave that way. Moreover, some of the polyethylene I've used in recent years was manufactured in WWII and is still a viable insulator although (new old stock) coaxial cables with PE dialectic from that era are no longer as pliable as they once were (plastic jacket insulation taken into account).


Is it possible that the companies that sold you these "polyethylene" storage containers actually made them out of PVC and didn't tell you? Are these those big plastic tubs? I've also noticed those getting brittle over time, although I haven't experienced the unpleasant syneresis you describe. So far my polypropylene 20-liter buckets aren't doing anything similar, but I've only had them for a few years.


First, I'm not in the US (I assume you are), so things may be different here. Until recently all were manufactured locally but the latest batch comes from China,

All containers are semitransparent polyethylene, I can mostly see the contents when looking from the side. The Chinese ones are slightly more transparent than the local product. They're not old enough to develop the film (6—12 months), so it remains to be seen what happens to them over time.

They're definitely not PVC—I've chucked enough of the broken ones on the fire over the years and they don't burn with the acrid fumes of PVC (there's no mistaking the choking smell of burning PVC).

Incidentally, on occasions when broken containers have left me short I've repaired them by running a soldering iron along the cracks to melt them together. As with Pb/Sn soldering I'll use a bit of spare material and apply it to the cracks. It melts just like polyethylene. You cannot do that with PVC (at least not practically), by the time it gets hot enough it bubbles and turns black and stinks to high heaven.

A final point, PVC is now banned here for household use—has been for several decades because of its choking fumes/toxic byproducts of combustion in house fires. Electrician friends who are old enough to remember the PVC insulation days still whinge at its loss, the new insulation isn't as robust or as flexible (stripping the insulation off wire isn't as easy as it was with PVC).


In the kitchen environment, there are no plastics that can outperform glass in terms of leaching and wear.

Even polycarbonate can't be run through a dishwasher or microwave like glass can. The only use I have for plastic in the kitchen is for blender jars. The shatter resistance is hard to argue with and PC doesn't emit particles when used with things like hard grains and ice.


It's nice to be able to transport dinner leftovers to work (or carry food on a hike) in something lightweight. If need be, they can then be decanted into a ceramic bowl for the microwave.

Glass (that won't easily shatter in a backpack) is just a bit heavy for food transport.


Plastics need to be taxed for the external cost their waste causes.

Galvanised metal wouldn’t have such a tax if it has no impact (it doesn’t).


Well we did this for the bags (put a high price on them) and banned some others (e.g. straws). My fear is that taxing plastic items more (let's say of VAT is 20%, plastics could get 35%). Then our dear politicians on Year4 will pass a law to "redirect the extra collection for blah blah blah" and it will end up _not_ to the effort of mitigating the plastic pollution, and we will be stuck with one more tax _and_ the pollution!!


> old galvanized bucket in our family that's well over 80 years old

It's got lead in it. Not everything in the past is better.


I'm fed up hearing about lead contamination, so let me try and put this into perspective.

Zinc galvanizing generally only has lead in it as a impurity and it's in pretty small amounts (zinc and lead are often mined together so completely separating the two is expensive (one has to be mindful of the costs)). That said, there are some few exceptions where tiny amounts of lead are used as a wetting agent.

This obsession with lead contamination really has gone too far when we start worrying about the tiny amount of lead in galvanizing. It's on a par with the obsession with the harmless amount of thiomersal in vaccines (I know, I'll never convince the unconvinced).

Look at it this way, zinc is harder than lead thus it's harder to rub off than lead—so it traps any lead that might be there. Given that the galvanizing on this 80+ year old bucket is still intact, how much lead has it shead in the past 80+ years? Answer: stuff all!

Consider this: large parts of the world have buildings still covered in lead paint and that lead will be still hanging around for hundreds of years to come. And there's one hell of a lot of it. Some years ago I removed the flaking paint from my house before repainting it and I could hardly lift the buckets they were so heavy from the lead. Anyone in an old house that's not had every ounce of lead paint removed would get orders of magnitude more lead in their bodies from the paint than from my galvanized bucket. Moreover, just removing the paint will spread lead about no matter how careful one is. Is that residual lead relevant? Well, it depends on many factors, the fact is you can't remove every trace of it no matter how hard you try. Also remember lead paint sheds lead as an aerosol—lead dust, galvanizing does not.

Lead is everywhere in the environment, in soil, in eves and attics—everywhere thanks to that ratbag Thomas Midgley Jr. and his tetraethyllead in gasoline. Lead from gasoline is still everywhere and isn't going away anytime soon.

Again, I'd suggest the average person would absorb orders of magnitude more lead from that source than they would from our old galvanized bucket.

I'm not finished yet, what about all that lead in building damp courses, in roofs, in church leadlight windows, etc., and in some places it's still used for water pipes. There's even lead in Flint's water supply.

Moreover, lead is still being used in buildings, especially in roofs where old lead is being replaced with new. Rain oxidizes the lead and the runoff continues to contaminate the soils and waterways.

Remember the fire in Notre Dame in Paris where hundreds of tons of lead melted and collapsed onto the cathedral floor. Well, that lead wasn't replaced with some safer material but rather new lead installed in exactly the same way as it was centuries ago.

No, that's still not all. For around a hundred years until only several decades ago fruit trees, especially apple and pear trees, were sprayed with the insecticide lead arsenate (lead hydrogen arsenate, PbHAsO4) to protect against codling moth and such. And as it's an inorganic chemical the double whammy of both lead and arsenic will be in the soils of thousands of orchards indefinitely (as a kid I used to spray our own apple trees with the stuff).

Oh, and there's much more, crystal drinking glasses, car batteries, lead in solder, and so on.

Lead is an important industrial metal and it's not going away anytime soon—we just have to get used to it being around us in the environment and in industry.

That's not to say it's not dangerous especially so to children. Nevertheless, we have to put this ubiquitous contamination into perspective, we have to channel our efforts where it's most effective—and that's not worrying about the miniscule amount of lead locked up in galvanizing.

What truly pisses me off is that the lead poisoning problem has been known about for millennia, since Roman times in fact, and yet so little has been done since the industrial age to protect people—ensure proper safety protocols are in place when working with lead, etc.

The trouble has always been that lead's industrial and economic value has always outweighed its dangers—that is, its perceived dangers which have changed over time. Whilst, today, we are more conscious of its dangers than in the past that should have been the situation well over a century ago.

There was absolutely no excuse for Midgley's tetraethyllead in gasoline as the dangers of lead were well known at the time.

By the mid Nineteenth Century the problem of lead poisoning was so well known that elders were teaching their kids of the dangers. No, this isn't hearsay, here's the evidence: download the PDF version of the 1858 edition of The Boy's Book of Industrial Information by Elisha Noyce from the Open Library: openlibrary.org/books/OL24144198M/The_boy%27s_book_of_industrial_information.

At the bottom of p57 is a discussion on the uses and preparation of white lead. On p58 is a statement that I find remarkable for the time (167 years ago), it's just as applicable now as it was then:

"White lead is a very poisonous substance, and produces the disease called painters’ colic, when taken into the system in minute quantities and for a long time, so that all who have much to do with this dangerous substance, as house-painters and artists, should be extremely careful that their hands are well washed frequently, and especially before going to meals."

And that's just a warning for boys—what else did the Establishment know about lead poisoning at that time? Much more I'd bet.

What's truly outrageous is that 68 years later Midgley and cohorts had the fucking hide and audacity to add tetraethyllead to gasoline in 1926. Moreover, by then not only that information from 1858 was known but also chemistry and medicine had moved on significantly. Clearly much more knowledge was known about lead poisoning by then. It's hard to believe they got away with putting lead in gas for so long. This is one of the great 20th Century disasters, as Wiki puts it:

"Throughout the sixty year period from 1926 to 1985, an estimated 20 trillion liters of leaded gasoline at an average lead concentration of 0.4 g/L were produced and sold in the United States alone, or an equivalent of 8 million tons of inorganic lead, [three quarters of which would have been emitted in the form of lead chloride and lead bromide]. Estimating a similar amount of lead to have come from other countries' emissions, a total of more than 15 million tonnes of lead may have been released into the atmosphere."

This isn't the only crime of this type, asbestos is a similar story but I can't cover that here.

As I said, lead is everywhere and eliminating it completely from the environment is impossible. The best we can do is to concentrate on things that truly matter, teaching kids the lesson from 1858, keeping them away from known large sources of lead such as flaky paint and so on. We haven't enough time in our lives to worry about sources that are in the noise.

Here's another perspective: it's said that there's enough naturally occurring arsenic in the average cubic meter of soil to kill a person but we don't worry about it because at that concentration it's not going to harm anyone.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: