| |
25 Jan 05 - sacks; cups; composition; toys; blowers; job; diapers; pesticides
** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM **
-- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition
--------
Forum archive: http://www.nwpcarchive.org
---------------------
From Lisa Friend, RE Sources, Bellingham, WA:
Here's a reuse poser I'm having trouble solving: Our local farmers buy
their grain in woven polyethylene "super sacks," which are roughly the size
of a small car and fold up to briefcase-size when they're empty. In the
past, these huge bags were returned to the vendors for refilling. Since the
specter of mad cow disease, the suppliers won't take back the bags in order
to prevent "biocontamination." Farmers are now required to pay $7 per bag
and then stockpile the empties. I can't seem to find out whether it's
possible to sterilize and reuse these bags or who enforces the
"biocontamination" issue. Our commercial fishers like similar bags for
storing nets, but the "Super Sacks" are too big. Does anyone know how we
can get these reused? Recycling opportunities exist, but are limited.
Thanks.
E-mail: recycle ( AT ) re-sources ( DOT ) org
----------------------
From Alexandra Thompson, King County Solid Waste Division, Recycling and
Environmental Services, Seattle WA:
I work on the King County WasteWise program
(http://www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd/about/waste-wise
), the internal waste
prevention, recycling and buy-recycled program for King County agencies. One
of the projects we are considering is a "cup action" at one of our big
County office buildings in downtown Seattle. In the project, we would
highlight the positive impact of reusable mugs and hopefully draw people
away from the use of disposable cups. I should mention that we are targeting
a population that is surrounded by coffee houses where going for a latte is
part of the routine work day. We are not targeting the casual pedestrian who
pops into the coffee house for a treat. Ideas include giving away cups if
staff sign a pledge (saying that they will use the reusable cup instead of a
disposable one), and asking for discounts or coupons from neighboring
coffeehouses.
Before we go out and buy a bunch of mugs, I really want to know why paper
cups are more popular than reusable mugs. Is it simply because they are more
convenient? People forget their mugs? Is it an image thing? What are some
opportunities and barriers that might help me design a successful project?
E-mail: alexandra (D O T) thompson (A T) metrokc (D O T) gov
----------------------
From Sondra Flite, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),
Trenton, NJ:
I have a question: This came up in discussion at the New Jersey DEP. We
have the feeling, from speaking with county and town coordinators, that
garbage, in general, is less amenable to recycling than perhaps 20 years
ago, because products are more likely to be made of composite materials and
to be electronic, and just too hard to demanufacture. But if upper
management asks us how we know this, I have to admit it's anecdotal. Any
hard evidence out there that, pound for pound, today's garbage is harder to
separate and recycle?
E-mail: Sondra [ D O T ] Flite [ A T ] dep [ D O T ] state [ D O T ] nj [ D O T ] us
(Note from Tom: Although we usually don't run questions that deal strictly
with recycling, we're running this one because it has waste prevention
implications.)
---------------------
From Jay Shepard, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA:
Is there a baby somewhere in your life? Yours, a relative's, a friend's or
co-worker's? Then you have got to read this wonderful article on
educational toys. I watched the broadcast version of this story on CBC.
This written version loses some of the broadcast humor and sarcasm, but it
is still a good read.
Bottom line? Advertising dupes us again. Save your money; create less
waste; reduce stress on infant and you; don't buy this stuff.
"Bringing up Brainy: A look at the educational toy market"
Reporter: Erica Johnson. Broadcast: January 16, 2005.
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/money/brainybaby/index.html
E-mail: jshe461 ( AT ) ECY ( DOT ) WA ( DOT ) GOV
---------------------
From Gretchen Brewer, Earth Circle, San Diego, CA, in response to the
1/11/05 item from Sierra magazine, listing leaf blowers as one of the "Ten
Dumbest Consumer Goods":
I'll add an observation about leaf blowers. The other big drawback of these
things is the gasoline fumes for landscape workers and anyone else nearby.
Last week I walked down the sidewalk behind the guy using a leaf blower at
our building and promptly got an all-day headache from the fumes.
E-mail: EarthGB [AT] aol [DOT] com
---------------------
Link to a job posting for a public education associate with Beyond
Pesticides in Washington, DC:
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/join/employment.htm
Beyond Pesticides
is a national non-profit research and activist organization. This person
would coordinate the organization's Center for Community Pesticide and
Alternatives Information, among other duties. Salary is in the "mid- to
upper-20's," based on experience, plus ample vacation days. The deadline
for applications is Feb. 9, 2005.
----------------------
The next message is in response to the 1/19/05 posting from Michelle
Portman, seeking help with the problems she is having using cloth diapers on
her daughter. Michelle also received five additional responses that the
Forum was cc'd on. Most of those responses suggested that the detergent
being used on the diapers might be the problem. Although we don't have
space to run them, thanks to Don Van Dyke, Paula Kinzer, Julie Rhodes,
Christine Gardener and Julie Haas-Wajdowicz for those responses!
Excerpted from a message from Angelique Mullen, San Francisco, CA, Real
Diaper Association:
There are quite a few reasons for diaper rash. First, it could be not
changing the child frequently enough. Disposable diapers have sodium
polyacrylate gel, which wicks moisture away from the child's bottom (along
with other harmful things). Obviously, cloth diapers don't have that, so
changes need to occur more often. Even with disposable diapers, pee is pee.
It is not healthy for a child to sit in urine that long. What touches the
skin gets absorbed by the skin.
Second, perhaps it is the detergent being used for washing. I would vary the
detergents, and use something more natural that does not have abrasive
chemicals. Also, sometimes a presoak or quick rinse with baking soda and
cold water helps pre-cleanse the diapers before you use detergent and hot
water. You could also try a quick post-wash rinse with vinegar, which can
help neutralize the ammonia in the urine and get rid of any soap residue.
Third, trying different kinds of cloth diapers might help. There are so many
types, and if you find the right system for you, they shouldn't leak. We
like to use simple prefolds and wrap covers. But we also use a snappi clip,
which takes the place of diaper pins and helps secure the diaper. With this
system, we have very few leaks. Make sure the cotton part of the diaper is
inside the cover. Otherwise, a wet cotton diaper sticking out can get the
child's pants wet.
The website for our organization, the Real Diaper Association, is at:
http://www.realdiaperassociation.org
E-mail: angelique ( AT ) realdiaperassociation ( DOT ) org
----------------------
Excerpted from a 1/17/05 article by Joan Lowy for Scripps Howard News
Service:
U.S. LAWN-CARE INDUSTRY FIGHTING BACK AGAINST PESTICIDE BANS
Fearing that a Canadian movement to ban the use of pesticides on lawns will
take root in the United States, the lawn-care industry has thrown down the
gauntlet - literally. "The gloves are off," declares an industry ad running
in trade magazines under a picture of masculine-looking leather gardening
gloves lying atop a lush green lawn. "Yes, legislation and regulations have
been throwing the green industry some rough punches," the ad says. "And
we're about to start fighting back."
The ads are underwritten by Project Evergreen
(http://www.projectevergreen.com ), a
trade association formed by pesticide makers, applicators, garden centers
and mower manufacturers that plans to launch a national public-relations
campaign this spring touting the health and lifestyle benefits of thick,
green lawns.
The green industry, as the lawn-products industry calls itself, has reason
to worry. Increasing concern about the impact of pesticides and synthetic
fertilizers on human health and the environment is fueling a movement to ban
or restrict the "cosmetic" or "aesthetic" use of artificial chemicals for
lawns and gardens. In Canada, the province of Quebec and nearly 70 cities
and towns - including Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax - have passed
laws banning or restricting the use of pesticides for lawn care. Some
activists are predicting that pesticides will become the next tobacco.
"Pesticides are a bit like secondhand smoke - if you can smell your neighbor
using them on their property, then you're being exposed, too," said Michel
Gaudet, president of the Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, in St.
Bruno, Quebec.
The picture in the United States is more complicated. Over the last several
years, the pesticide industry has successfully lobbied state legislatures to
pass what are known as "pre-emption laws." These give states responsibility
for pesticide regulation and prevent cities and towns from enacting their
own laws. So far, 30 states have adopted pre-emption laws. "Local
communities generally do not have the expertise on issues about pesticides
to make responsible decisions," said Allen James, president of Responsible
Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), a pesticide-industry lobbying
group. "Decisions are made much more carefully and the train moves much more
slowly" at the state level.
At the same time, however, 20 states have adopted laws requiring signs or
some sort of public notification when pesticides are applied to lawns.
Dozens of communities have also adopted policies barring or restricting the
use of pesticides on school property, public ball fields and parks.
Beyond Pesticides (http://www.beyondpesticides.org
), an environmental group in Washington,
DC, has responded to Project Evergreen's "gloves are off" ad with a copycat
ad that features a pair of feminine-looking gardening gloves decorated with
daisies over the headline, "Get a Grip."
"The chemical lawn care industry is worried that the word is getting out on
the toxic hazards of lawn pesticides," the ad says. "It is possible to have
a green lawn without toxic pesticides."
A team of medical researchers with the Ontario College of Family Physicians,
a Canadian professional society for family doctors, released a report last
year that analyzed 250 previously published epidemiological studies from
around the world on possible adverse effects of pesticides on human health.
The report found "consistent positive associations" between popular
pesticides used in lawn care and cancers, reproductive problems, neurotoxic
effects and other serious illnesses. Pets and wildlife are at risk, too. A
study by scientists at Purdue University in Indiana found that Scottish
terriers were four to seven times more likely to develop bladder cancer if
they had been exposed to lawn chemicals.
But industry officials say pesticides must pass 120 different tests before
they can be marketed in the United States. The Environmental Protection
Agency determines how much human exposure to a particular pesticide is safe.
However, roughly half of homeowners admit they don't read or follow label
directions when applying pesticides and synthetic fertilizers to lawns,
often using significantly more than the recommended amount, lawn-care
experts said.
"The unintended failure to follow some small part of the label - a minor
misapplication - does not jeopardize human health," James said. "It takes a
massive misuse of the product to cause harm."
The manufacture of specialty pesticides - lawn products as well as indoor
pest killers - is a $2.5 billion annual industry in the United States, James
said.
A recent survey sponsored by Organic Gardening magazine in conjunction with
the National Gardening Association estimates that of the 90 million U.S.
households with yards, about 5 million are exclusively using organic
methods, 31 million are using a combination of organic and chemical methods
and 35 million are using primarily chemical methods.
- end -
|
