Actually, where do many things go? Rocks become stones, which become
pebbles, which become sand, which becomes microscopic sandy dust and the
inorganic component of soil. How does this differ from the harmful
microscopic grains of degenerated plastic - and, presumably, paint?
While I can understand why large pieces of plastic floating in the sea
can be hazardous to marine life (complete plastic bags ingested by
turtles, whales etc, and seals and dolphins becoming entangled in lost
or discarded fishing nets, for example), the dangers of finer plastic
is not immediately obvious, not to me at least. I would expect most of
it to pass right through and be crapped out as with ordinary marine
food residues. And if some does get absorbed into the organs of the
marine life, is it actually doing any harm? And if we eat said marine
life, is it actually going to harm us? I suspect the answer to both
those questions is no and no.
And does the plastic never break down in the sea; is it there 'for
ever' as we're so often being told? Well, no. It breaks down into
finer and finer pieces, certainly, but that just exposes more surface
for the plastic-munching bacteria to get at and hasten the eventual
decomposition of the plastic. The lifetime of plastics in the oceans
See for example,
My own view is that we should take an intelligent view of plastics.
They are, after all, an essential component of modern living, but we
should use less where we can, and recycle where we can't.
Ok, I'll admit to buying a bottle drink when we are out and have been
caught out but 1) we often re-use the bottle several times and 2) will
always recycle them properly. Even to the point of not trusting that
the likes of McDonalds sorting their waste and taking it home so that
we can be sure we have done it properly (rather than just throwing it
out the window of their car at some point on their way home ... where
they typically have a bin outside their own house?).
If we do buy a plastic bottle of drink it's rarely just water out of
principal. Do they say bottled water is 1000 times more expensive than
tap water and often not as well tested as tap water?
I often see people heaving huge multipacks of water into the shopping
trolleys or car boys and think they must be mad or something?
I often buy the Salisbury's 2% lager that has recently gone up to
£1.25 for 4 cans. How can 4 cans of lager, that is mostly water, be
less than a bottle of plain water?
The answer of course is that some people buy bottled water because
they think it's better for them, are too lazy to re-fill an existing
bottle or think it tastes better (when where they have done blind
tests, 'most people' prefer tap water). ;-)
What a mad world we live in ...
Cheers, T i m
p.s. Since I saw it mentioned here, we care saving crisp / snack
packets as I believe Walkers will take them is 5kg batches. We are
looking for a good way to store them as they can take up a bit of room
unless compressed somehow (and we don't want to knot them up as I'm
not sure how they re-process them).
No, quite, and at least it isn't just plain (still) water (that was my
I 'get' the 'I'm caught out and thirsty' thing, even for plain water,
it's the people who you see lugging what must be gallons of often
(still) water home from the shops when they have the same stuff for
1/1000th of the cost (of the water, let alone the environmental costs
of it's packaging and *transportation* ) coming out of their taps
Cheers, T i m
 And these same people generally do having water coming out of a
tap at home, this isn't Africa and they aren't wild camping away from
a stream! ;-)
"... The Cleveland Water Department ran tests comparing a bottle of
Fiji Water to Cleveland tap water and some other national bottled
brands. Fiji Water reportedly contained 6.31 micrograms of arsenic per
litre, whereas the tap water of Cleveland contained none. In a
2015 test of Fiji Water bottled in November 2014, performed and
reported by the company, the reported arsenic level was 1.2 micrograms
per litre, below the FDA limit of 10 micrograms per litre."
This is another thing that gets me, the conspicuous consumption of
stuff, just because you can and / or because of how others 'rate' you
because of it.
In the same way the 'done thing' when you are selling an expensive
house is to fit a new kitchen to sell it and the fist thing any new
owner will do is rip out the brand new kitchen and fit a new one, the
'old' stuff going in the skip (that's part of the effect), not being
offered to friends or on Freecycle etc.
Like you hear of celebs having stuff 'flown in' especially for them or
only wearing their clothes once (before binning, not recycling them).
I don't begrudge them having the money to do it, I am frustrated that
they don't have the social conscience not to do it.
Cheers, T i m
My parents' old kitchen went to their newly purchased property in France
and stayed there until they sold it 29 years later - so they had a
1970's, light green kitchen until last year!
When I bought this house, I kept the existing kitchen for some years
(changing the worktops and damaged sink) and only replaced the rest when
I needed more cupboards and could not match them. Two of the doors were
retained to re-do our electric cupboard in the hall and have just been
We are now another 15 years on and about to redo the kitchen. The
carcasses will remain, but the worktop near the sink has begun to swell
and needs changing anyway as we are replacing a cooker with a separate
oven and hob, the end one is too narrow since we rearranged the layout
and the third one is too short and so has a joiner where it was extended
for an extra cupboard. The cupboard door foils have begun to peel and
the laminate flooring has suffered from a bit too much water after years
of mopping and a couple of recent floods from a faulty washing machine.
I think we are getting a reasonable life out of most of it.
I don't send clothes to recycling, but they are worn until they are past
it (even my children's clothes are kept for when I send them under the
floor - my arthritic knees mean that crawling under the floor is
reserved for me carrying out terminations of cables and the like), then
relegated to "work" clothes and finally rags for cleaning. My wife tends
to wear clothes until they start to come apart (I am lucky - she hates
It is a totally different mindset. We re-use many things and keep others
going long after many people would have discarded them, but it takes an
odd mindset to buy things and use them once. I have difficulty even
buying special tools that may be only used once and do my best to work
around such problems, even though it can cause difficulties trying to do
It's no use cutting back on plastics if you create another problem by
using alternative consumables (such as "sparklet" capsules) that require
much more resources for recycling and probably create more climate
altering gasses during manufacture.
Its very much like people that give up dairy products for health or
climate crisis reasons but then start using plant based dairy substitute
products sourced from ingredients transported from the other side of the
planet and are heavily modified in industrialised processes that use
salt, sugar and other "healthy" ingredients to make them palatable.
Then that depends on the overall footprint of each.
eg, It could well be that the 'fake milk' requires a faction of the
space to produce (compared with cows milk), a fraction of the water
and actually produces far less of the worst greenhouse gasses (methane
V CO2), then we may all still be better off overall (and no cow
hormones in fake milk for example).
Cheers, T i m
How can they claim no added sugars when one of their products is
Factor in the destruction of the soil structure by constantly growing
crops. Leaving the ground fallow and growing grass for a couple of years
and then using grazing animals for maintenance during this time may be
beneficial for the country.
It may be impractical to plant crops when the whole of the countryside
is full of wind and solar farms.
You aren't very bright are you?
"* contains naturally occurring sugars"
Do you think they *add* lactose to cows milk?
(And they let these people vote ... <rolls eyes>). ;-(
But it may not, if grazing animals (even if also for milk or meat
production) takes up say 20x the land in the first place and produce
loads more methane (than say a combine harvester produces CO2).
Makes no difference.
Whilst they are planting crops under solar farms (agrivoltaics), solar
farms may be better positioned on land that may not be idea for
growing crops in the first place (inaccessible by big machines, rocky,
dry or contaminated).
Cheers, T i m
So why the label unsweetened on one carton and not the other two?
Naturally occurring sugar added to two products and not the other?
You do seem to be lacking some knowledge about how food labelling
works. Call sugar something else and add a label saying no added sugar.
It's not *added* is it you nutjob, it's there already! (FFS!).
Oh dear oh dear. Back to your cognitive bias problem again? ;-(
"unsweetened: with no sugar or other sweet substances added:"
How difficult life must be (or easy as they are always right
irrespective of how much the facts contradict them) for the left
brainers ... ;-(
That means no ADDITIONAL sugars have been added (in any form).
Sheesh ... and they let these people vote ... ;-(
Cheers, T i m
Soya (or other grain such as oats) contains vey ltiile free sugar, but
apple joice is added to the not-unsweetened one. Which does contain
various sweet-tasting sugers.
Why a purely mechanical extract of suigar cane is not "natural" is a
bit of a mystery to me - especially as olive oil is obtained by a rather
similar process, and is, apparently, natural. AFAiCS the only thing
that is not "natural" is witchcraft.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.