WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

03 Feb 03 - water bottles; mops; phone books; newsletter; printer cartridges ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive -------------------- Excerpted from a 1/26/03 Canadian Press news service article by Jen Horsey: REUSE OF WATER BOTTLES MAY POSE HEALTH RISK While people may think they're doing a good deed for the environment when they reuse water bottles for anything from orange juice in a bagged lunch to a week's worth of water refills from the office water cooler, researchers say they could be risking their health. Dangerous bacteria and potentially toxic plastic compounds have been found in the types of water bottles typically reused in classrooms and workplaces. A study of water bottles at a Calgary elementary school found bacteria in kids' bottles that would prompt health officials to issue boil-water advisories, had the samples come from a tap. Researchers discovered bacterial contamination in about a third of the samples collected from kids' water bottles at the school. Some samples even showed evidence of fecal coliforms. "If a town water supply had fecal coliforms in it, it would have to be shut down," said Cathy Ryan, the University of Calgary professor who authored the study. The bacteria likely came from the kids' hands and mouths over time as they repeatedly used the same bottles without washing them or allowing them to dry, Ryan said. While researchers in her study collected samples from only 76 bottles at one elementary school, which has not been identified, Ryan said the results would likely be the same anywhere else. When the study results were published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health in the fall, the local school board advised parents to make sure kids' bottles were taken home and washed properly and frequently. However, a study conducted in the United States suggests the kind of thorough washing that could kill bacteria might make the bottles unsafe in another way. Frequent washing might accelerate the break-down of the plastic, potentially causing chemicals to leach into the water, the study found. Preliminary research conducted by a graduate student at the University of Idaho found that with repeated use, toxic chemical compounds can migrate out of the bottles into the liquid inside. Although plastics experts contend the bottles are safe, the study ultimately concluded little is known about what happens when the bottles are used over and over again. "The fact is, a lot of these compounds have not really been studied in terms of their human health effects," said Margrit von Braun, a University of Idaho professor. Single-use soft-drink and water bottles are commonly made of a plastic called polyethylene terephthalate (PET) which, while considered safe for its intended use, was found to break down over time. "The longer you used it, the more stuff ended up in the water," said von Braun. One of the toxins that frequently appeared in water samples from the reused bottles was DEHA, a carcinogen regulated in drinking water because it has been found to cause weight loss, liver problems, or possible reproductive difficulties. It is also suspected that DEHA can cause cancer in humans. Von Braun said she was surprised to discover how widespread the reuse was - and how long some people would hold on to a single bottle. "A lot of people use them for weeks, and sometimes months, literally until it's leaking," said von Braun. The Canadian Bottled Water Association advises against reusing the containers altogether. It says the containers are made for single use and should be recycled afterward, not reused. People would be unable to properly sterilize the bottles at home, and the industry doesn't evaluate the safety of the bottles for multiple uses, said Elizabeth Griswold, executive director of the Canadian Bottled Water Association. Reuse of the plastic bottles "is not something we recommend," said Griswold. -------------------- Excerpted from a message from Donald Van Dyke, California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Sacramento, CA, responding to the 1/28/03 posting about reusable electrostatic cleaning cloths: The mention of electrostatic cleaning, from the OrganizedHome.com website, brought to mind a new fact sheet by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on microfiber mops. It is written for hospitals, but it applies to this subject. Microfiber mops could be useful in homes without much in the way of carpet or rugs. At the moment, the fact sheet is only available online through the CIWMB Waste Prevention Information Exchange, although EPA intends to eventually have it posted on their website. This fact sheet, "Using Microfiber Mops in Hospitals," gives detailed cost information for switching from conventional wet loop mops to microfiber mops for floor cleaning. It highlights the benefits, including shorter cleaning times, reduced chemical and water use, and easier ergonomics. It also includes a case study. This document was produced by U.S. EPA Region 9, Pollution Prevention Program, and can be found at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/WPIE/HealthCare/EPAMicroMop.pdf E-mail: DVanDyke (A T) CIWMB (D O T) ca (D O T) gov -------------------- The next two postings are in response to the 1/28/03 posting about phone books, which noted that a few years ago, Pacific Bell in California said that the California Public Utilities Commission required them to deliver a phone book for every phone line. -------------------- Excerpted from a message from Gina Hawkins, City of Gainesville, recycling program, Gainesville, FL: We are participating in a pilot program with BellSouth where they provide the yellow pages directory on a CD. They chose Gainesville, FL, since we have a large student population and most people have computer access here. Perhaps a CD could be provided to California customers instead of a phone book. Also, here is a link to information about BellSouth's online Yellow Pages: http://www.therealyellowpageslive.com E-Mail: hawkinsrm [ AT ] ci [ DOT ] gainesville [ DOT ] fl [ DOT ] us (Note from Tom: These online BellSouth Yellow Pages are the first example that I've seen of a company offering an Internet-based replica of their "yellow pages" print directory.) --------------------- From Kinley Deller, King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA: While it is true that phone companies are required in many (and perhaps all) locations around the U.S. to provide a phone directory to their clients, it is, at least in Washington state, only required that the company which actually provides the (local) service to a household provide a directory. This means that every household is only required to be provided with one directory (or a set of directories from one company). In Washington state, telephone regulations (including the one regarding directory distribution) fall under the jurisdiction of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC). E-mail: kinley [DOT] deller [AT] metrokc [DOT] gov -------------------- Link to the Winter, 2003, online newsletter for BRING Recycling, a non-profit organization in Eugene, OR, that provides recycling and waste prevention services and education: http://www.bringrecycling.org/newsletters/03winternews_page1.html This is a nice example of a community newsletter with a very strong emphasis on reuse and reduction. -------------------- Excerpted from a 1/30/03 Associated Press article by Paul Nowell: GIANT PRINTER COMPANY GOES AFTER CARTRIDGE REFILLER The endless e-mail and fax advertisements for replacement printer cartridges point to a desktop-printing reality - profits reside in the ink. Now a firm that makes the replacements finds itself in the copyright crosshairs of printer giant Lexmark International in a legal tussle over ink cartridges. In a federal lawsuit, Lexmark claims Static Control Components, based in Sanford, NC, violated the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act to swipe a large chunk of its aftermarket printer-supply sales. The conflict arises from the way the computer-printer business operates. Since printers are relatively inexpensive, manufacturers make most of their income selling the replacement ink or toner cartridges - just as razor blades bring in more money than the shavers for which they're made. Demand led to the creation of a new industry: companies like Static Control that collect discarded cartridges, refill them and sell them at steep discounts. Lexmark, one of the top U.S. manufacturers of computer printers, tried to fight its new rivals by installing tiny computer chips. They cause Lexmark printers to malfunction if the replacement cartridge isn't made by Lexmark, which is based in Lexington, KY. In response, Static Control designed a "Smartek" chip that enables its replacement cartridges to work in the Lexmark printers. That led to the Dec. 30 lawsuit, in which Lexmark alleges Static Control's microchip includes copies of its copyrighted software in violation of the 1998 copyright law. The claim is scheduled for a hearing Feb. 7 in federal court in Lexington. In a Jan. 9 news release, Lexmark accused Static Control of profiting from Lexmark's investment, saying, "Lexmark spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on research and development, and the company intends to vigorously protect its intellectual property rights." But Static Control founder Ed Swartz contends Lexmark attacked his company as part of its strategy to grab a larger slice of the lucrative printer-supply market - a strategy he says hurts consumers and the environment. Static Control, which employs 1,200 people in several plants in Sanford, produces ink cartridges for a variety of printers, including ones made by Hewlett-Packard and Xerox. "The DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) was not intended for this use," Swartz said. Lexmark's microchips are a simple "lockout device" that does not add any value beyond that purpose, he added. Static Control was founded in 1986. The company's name comes from another of its businesses - bags that protect electronic equipment from static electricity. Static Control commands about half the U.S. replacement ink-cartridge market, Swartz said - giving Lexmark an ample target. "They are trying to bleed us economically and run up huge legal bills," he said. "We will take this to the Supreme Court if we need to." If Lexmark wins the case, Swartz said consumers could face sharp price increases. On another front, environmentalists contend that cartridge remanufacturing helps reduce the amount of oil used for such printing, while curbing the number of spent cartridges tossed into landfills. The hearing next month comes as Lexmark is working to solidify its position in the printer industry. Last week, the company said its quarterly income more than tripled as sales of printer supplies offset a decline in printer sales. Laser and inkjet supplies revenue was $654 million for the fourth quarter, up 23 percent from $530 million in the same period in 2001. Cindy Cohn, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil-liberties group in San Francisco, said Lexmark is using the DMCA to try to keep revenue from companies such as Static Control. "This is the most egregious misuse of the DMCA that we've found so far," she said, calling the lawsuit anti-consumer. Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in copyright law, said the court case could have other ramifications. "You could see it being used in areas such as aftermarket car parts," she said. For example, a company could install microchips that would force car or truck owners to purchase replacement parts from the original manufacturer, she said. - end -