Greenwashing

[Sciguy]

The commercial world is just saturated with greenwashing scams. We have plenty of perpetual motion machines promoted here on Wacco as well as health scams based on the amazing, astounding properties of buying expensive water. The corporations will do anything they can to try to convince you that everything they want to sell is beneficial to the planet. Most of it is BS. But here is one particular greenwashing scam that is making the rounds.
<p>
BAMBOO FIBER
<p>
I learned a lot by going to https://organicclothing.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/09/bamboo-facts-be.html. I was curious how the rough fibers in bamboo could be teased out and woven into a textile. I learned that I had it all wrong. No such thing is going on (they report on a minor process that does this called bamboo linen but is not what is usually meant by bamboo cloth). Instead, bamboo is just being used as one additional source of cellulose. Instead of the most common source - wood - bamboo is crushed and dissolved into the raw material of rayon, a xanthogen is what they call it, using sodium hydroxide and carbon disulfide. Personally I have no problem with this process, depending on how it is done to contain and reuse all the chemicals (not an industrial priority at this time in this wasteful world where pollution is viewed with favor by the regulators) but that's a story for another place. I'm not denigrating the rayon process but merely pointing out that the connection to bamboo is long since dissolved in carbon disulfide and lost for all practical purposes. To call this bamboo fiber or cloth is a greenwashing scam, designed to ensnare the gullible.
<p>
Just for the record, rayon is a fiber made by solubilizing cellulose, in an alkaline medium, then forcing it thru fine holes called spinnerets into an acid bath which neutralizes the akalai immediately and precipitates it to a cellulose fiber.
<p>
So the right name for bamboo cloth is RAYON!
<p>
There is nothing new about it. It is not green in any sense (except if you think a bamboo plantation is better than a tree plantation - maybe you do).
<p>
Note that I am making no comment about real bamboo based materials in which bamboo is shaved or whatever and all glued together into a floorboard or cutting board or other wood subsitute.
<p>
Sciguy

[Ratfink]

The commercial world is just saturated with greenwashing scams. We have plenty of perpetual motion machines promoted here on Wacco as well as health scams based on the amazing, astounding properties of buying expensive water. The corporations will do anything they can to try to convince you that everything they want to sell is beneficial to the planet. Most of it is BS. But here is one particular greenwashing scam that is making the rounds.

BAMBOO FIBER


...
Well if you think about it, everything man has ever made comes from the planet earth so it is all organic and natural.

[nicofrog]

THANK GOD!
I thought I was the only one who noticed that everything that pollutes the h+++ out of the planet is suddenly GREEN
excuse me but gag me with an organic cabbage!
some of my favorites
Freidmans!! oh yeah, its a green painted building for sure!
Honda
Toyota
Nissan
Fluorescent lights
yes VERY green the greenest mercury in town!
soon we will have Green Hummers (actually I already saw one)
runs on bio diesel soon they'll have green napalm...
yeah folks
save the planet AND the economy

BUY GREEN :)
no more consumer guilt,now you can drive green redemption!
getcher green bamboo credit card whooo hooo
hey maybe there's a new planet out there that's
green, and we can just buy it!
oh yeah , and everything humans make is green cause it's
made by natural humans I like that,I'm sure Arnie would argue that atomic
energy and bombs are green (because they look good that color!)
and they are SO energy officiant!
bring on the green atomic suppository
Nico


The commercial world is just saturated with greenwashing scams. We have plenty of perpetual motion machines promoted here on Wacco as well as health scams based on the amazing, astounding properties of buying expensive water. The corporations will do anything they can to try to convince you that everything they want to sell is beneficial to the planet. Most of it is BS. But here is one particular greenwashing scam that is making the rounds.


BAMBOO FIBER


I learned a lot by going to https://organicclothing.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/09/bamboo-facts-be.html. I was curious how the rough fibers in bamboo could be teased out and woven into a textile. I learned that I had it all wrong. No such thing is going on (they report on a minor process that does this called bamboo linen but is not what is usually meant by bamboo cloth). Instead, bamboo is just being used as one additional source of cellulose. Instead of the most common source - wood - bamboo is crushed and dissolved into the raw material of rayon, a xanthogen is what they call it, using sodium hydroxide and carbon disulfide. Personally I have no problem with this process, depending on how it is done to contain and reuse all the chemicals (not an industrial priority at this time in this wasteful world where pollution is viewed with favor by the regulators) but that's a story for another place. I'm not denigrating the rayon process but merely pointing out that the connection to bamboo is long since dissolved in carbon disulfide and lost for all practical purposes. To call this bamboo fiber or cloth is a greenwashing scam, designed to ensnare the gullible.


Just for the record, rayon is a fiber made by solubilizing cellulose, in an alkaline medium, then forcing it thru fine holes called spinnerets into an acid bath which neutralizes the akalai immediately and precipitates it to a cellulose fiber.


So the right name for bamboo cloth is RAYON!


There is nothing new about it. It is not green in any sense (except if you think a bamboo plantation is better than a tree plantation - maybe you do).


Note that I am making no comment about real bamboo based materials in which bamboo is shaved or whatever and all glued together into a floorboard or cutting board or other wood subsitute.


Sciguy

[Braggi]

...
Fluorescent lights
yes VERY green the greenest mercury in town! ...

Nico, you're smarter than this! Do you suggest we should just live without light?

The new compact fluorescent are probably the "greenest" alternative we have for making light in our homes. They last 10 times as long as incandescents and just the energy needed to make that other 9 bulbs puts more mercury into the environment than is contained in the CF. Once that's understood you can start to look at all the barrels of oil saved over the life of that bulb, again saving a whole lot of mercury going into the air and water from burning all that coal or oil.

Please make better suggestions before trashing the best we have.

LEDs will get brighter and cheaper and they are a better alternative than CFs as far as energy consumption is concerned, but even they require a lot of energy and chemicals during manufacturing.

We live in a world of tradeoffs and that's a fact. I'm not willing to live in the dark when we have CF lightbulbs available for 39 cents each at Harbor Freight.

-Jeff

[nicofrog]

Yes Jeff, actually I AM suggesting we live without light
80% of the energy we use(and I am totally making up my own statistics here) is used to run streetlights,and skyscrapers all lit up at night because we are paranoid that someone will break a window, and steal something.
If we turned out ALL those lights at night, shut down oil refineries at night, stopped making behemoth stupid vehicles that certain idiots need to inflate their already over-camped egos, we'd have enough left over energy to GIVE stereos and goodies etc to all the thieves we worry about.
Yes but the question you need to ask is WHERE do you want the mercury, in your home, where the squiggley bulbs are most likely to get broken and ignored(because 90% of people do not know the mercury is there) down where the babies crawl, the pets live . not even hippys are careful with broken florescent bulbs . in the trash. more evil and dangerous landfill. No I don't buy it. just another ploy to BUY greeness .
OH and I forgot my other favorite and most ORIGINAL green washers
of all time ""WASTE MANAGEMENT"" they painted their trucks green twenty years ago, and sold us "re-cycling" as a green solution.A mafia plot to return products to industry.(the problem with landfills is not mass, as much as toxins.
The subject of this thread is GREENWASHING not "how accurate are nico's statements about environmental topics".My statements are not accurate. Our culture is Glorybound off a cliff,and any way I can draw attention to some stupidity of what we accept as normal, or good, I will.
If every car in the us could be replaced with a 1924 model" t"
with a conversion to fuel injection, we'd probably be just fine.
The dashboard in some american cars probably embodies as much energy as an entire "fliver" .( mind you, that dashboard contains airbags, that's a good thing,) how about whole cars that are airbags all over? why die from transportation?, seems like that should be first design criteria "No Die" after that comes cool looking.Fast etc.
automatic electric everything(including hybrids,and hydrogen etc etc
are just more computers and electronics) Here I am using a computer to bitch about computers. " A new everything that can do anything" is the concept we need to watch out for.Cell phones that mow your lawn, and you can shave with are a questionable nessesitoy.
These technologies are requiring a lot of greenwashing. I'm just saying ,when someone tells you you can BUY something to be more green,remember if you just find a way NOT to buy something you may be a lot more green.
You're right ,I am smarter than I am,It's just taking me a while to figure that out thanks Jeff!
In the Dark...(accept for this cathode ray tube that has fried my brain) Nico
p.s. do candles put out a lot of murcury??


Nico, you're smarter than this! Do you suggest we should just live without light?

The new compact fluorescent are probably the "greenest" alternative we have for making light in our homes. They last 10 times as long as incandescents and just the energy needed to make that other 9 bulbs puts more mercury into the environment than is contained in the CF. Once that's understood you can start to look at all the barrels of oil saved over the life of that bulb, again saving a whole lot of mercury going into the air and water from burning all that coal or oil.

Please make better suggestions before trashing the best we have.

LEDs will get brighter and cheaper and they are a better alternative than CFs as far as energy consumption is concerned, but even they require a lot of energy and chemicals during manufacturing.

We live in a world of tradeoffs and that's a fact. I'm not willing to live in the dark when we have CF lightbulbs available for 39 cents each at Harbor Freight.( yeah, who cares what the chinese are doing over there with tons of murcury,as long as we get our cheap!!)

-Jeff

[PeriodThree]

You are saying that your belief that we are 'glorybound off a cliff' justifies you making statements which you know are not accurate.

I personally believe that accurate information is vital. And I believe that intentionally making inaccurate statements does not work in the long term to further our interests, and I believe it is morally wrong to attempt to persuade by knowingly making inaccurate statements.

It looks like lighting makes up about 12% of residential (and 25% of commercial) energy use.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use_in_the_United_States






80% of the energy we use(and I am totally making up my own statistics here) is used to run streetlights,and skyscrapers all lit up at night

The subject of this thread is GREENWASHING not "how accurate are nico's statements about environmental topics".My statements are not accurate. Our culture is Glorybound off a cliff,and any way I can draw attention to some stupidity of what we accept as normal, or good, I will.

[Sciguy]

Guys:
I accept that mercury is a poison that we do not want in our bodies. Nevertheless, I also think that mercury is a wonderful scare topic that certain environmental organizations can springboard off of to try to scare the bejeezus out of those whom they view as their potential dues paying members. While most people are only responding to the scare mongering with genuine apprehension, the theme is kept alive by some who intend to profit from public fear.
<p>
I am a chemist and I sometimes need to look up data on different chemicals. When I Google a chemical name, the first twenty to fifty hits are nothing but warnings about how dangerous it is. And when I go to a hit that sounds like it is informational, it is very likely to spend half of its text warning readers about danger. I get fed up with this. Chemicals do not exist merely to poison us. Chemists work with chemicals because they are useful or interesting or necessary. Cautions are appropriate but there is much more to say about chemicals than that. The war against chemicals has become mindless and one-sided. And dumb, in my opinion, because just about the only conclusion you can find from all the flashing red light cautions is the dumb idea to ban everything. As though the chemicals have no purpose. Which brings me back to mercury.
<p>
There is a class of switches known as mercury switches. They are found in many kinds of appliances such as home thermostats, refrigerators and anything else where turning on a substantial current depends on a gentle stimulus, such as a changing temperature. They work great. They used to be found in cars too but public demand has apparently removed them. I hypothesize that the reason is that old cars are "recycled" by stupidly crushing them rather than by intelligently dismantling and reusing parts as I would like to see. I believe other mercury switches and fluorescent lamps suffer a similar fate.
<p>
So here is what I would recommend. Instead of making cheap, easily broken mercury switches (necessarily in glass capsules for its inertness) how about changing the way that mercury switches are made and used and reused. Let's make them robust, strong, covered with flexible plastic covers so that even if they are dropped, they don't break. Make them to last a thousand years (the wonderful thing about mercury switches is that the mercury is never exposed to oxygen). Then get rid of the silly recycling methods that want to destroy everything by crushing and destroying in order to capture shards of glass and steel and aluminum. Instead, institute methods of Zero Waste which seek to disassemble, label, repair, identify and reuse the highest function of everything. In other words, reuse switches, as switches, not as broken glass mixed with mercury. Then what is the reason for fearing and banning mercury any longer? Sure, there will be the occasional accident but that is not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is the reluctance to take responsibility for high functional reuse.
<p>
The use of mercury in fluorescent lights is another such venture. It is relatively easy to make lights that use caps on glass tubes which are easily removed and repaired. The burned out filaments can be replaced. But no, we have to have glass tubes that are so thin they break if you sing too loudly. And they have to be discarded the moment their first life is over. In fact, since accessing them in offices is a bit difficult, office buildings routinely discard ALL of their fluorescent tubes, working or not, on a schedule. The fluorescent phosphor and associated mercury could be collected and reused but instead, it is just so much easier and cheaper to put it into the garbage, thus exacerbating those fears about mercury pollution.
<p>
There are other sources of mercury (coal fly ash) not as easy to design around, but has anyone tried seriously, or is the expected cost a few cents higher than willy nilly pollution? Discard and garbage dumping are kept so cheap that laymen believe there can be no intelligent solution to excesses except dumps because everything else is too expensive. Get rid of the subsidies to dumping (like replacing the planet with a new one) and reuse of everything in its highest form will be a no-brainer.
<p>
In my opinion, the proper question to ask when on-going pollution is discovered is not how to write a letter to your Congressman demanding a ban but how to redesign manufacturing, use and reuse intelligently, to make use of the highest functions of all products, so their components are not released into the environment but are captured for perpetual reuse. Bans are not green - intelligent design is the greenest tool in the workshop.
<p>
Sciguy



Yes Jeff, actually I AM suggesting we live without light
80% of the energy we use(and I am totally making up my own statistics here) is used to run streetlights,and skyscrapers all lit up at night because we are paranoid that someone will break a window, and steal something.
If we turned out ALL those lights at night, shut down oil refineries at night, stopped making behemoth stupid vehicles that certain idiots need to inflate their already over-camped egos, we'd have enough left over energy to GIVE stereos and goodies etc to all the thieves we worry about.
Yes but the question you need to ask is WHERE do you want the mercury, in your home, where the squiggley bulbs are most likely to get broken and ignored(because 90% of people do not know the mercury is there) down where the babies crawl, the pets live . not even hippys are careful with broken florescent bulbs . in the trash. more evil and dangerous landfill. No I don't buy it. just another ploy to BUY greeness .
OH and I forgot my other favorite and most ORIGINAL green washers
of all time ""WASTE MANAGEMENT"" they painted their trucks green twenty years ago, and sold us "re-cycling" as a green solution.A mafia plot to return products to industry.(the problem with landfills is not mass, as much as toxins.
The subject of this thread is GREENWASHING not "how accurate are nico's statements about environmental topics".My statements are not accurate. Our culture is Glorybound off a cliff,and any way I can draw attention to some stupidity of what we accept as normal, or good, I will.
If every car in the us could be replaced with a 1924 model" t"
with a conversion to fuel injection, we'd probably be just fine.
The dashboard in some american cars probably embodies as much energy as an entire "fliver" .( mind you, that dashboard contains airbags, that's a good thing,) how about whole cars that are airbags all over? why die from transportation?, seems like that should be first design criteria "No Die" after that comes cool looking.Fast etc.
automatic electric everything(including hybrids,and hydrogen etc etc
are just more computers and electronics) Here I am using a computer to bitch about computers. " A new everything that can do anything" is the concept we need to watch out for.Cell phones that mow your lawn, and you can shave with are a questionable nessesitoy.
These technologies are requiring a lot of greenwashing. I'm just saying ,when someone tells you you can BUY something to be more green,remember if you just find a way NOT to buy something you may be a lot more green.
You're right ,I am smarter than I am,It's just taking me a while to figure that out thanks Jeff!
In the Dark...(accept for this cathode ray tube that has fried my brain) Nico
p.s. do candles put out a lot of murcury??