Posted in reply to the post by PeriodThree:
When I am faced with a problem I break that problem down into parts in order to solve each part. I initially made a list of the problems I know about plastics. One of the things on that list was the 'Environmental effects of disposal.'
Somehow you have drawn the conclusion that making a list is the same as dismissing a problem.
This seems like a strange thing for you to write. It feels like the sort of argument people make when they want to be negative and condemn, and don't really want a problem to be solved.
There are a lot of people working on solving the full life cycle problems of plastic. Progress is being made on many fronts.
I think the answer to the problems of plastic grocery bags is to stop using
them. That seems to be the growing consensus:
(China bans free plastic grocery bags)
https://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiap...ags/index.html
(Motivated by a Tax, Irish Spurn Plastic Bags)
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/world/europe/02bags.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
This feels like more of that same philosophy of the perfect being the enemy of the good. You seem to feel that reusing something for 30 years is bad because it doesn't solve the whole issue.
I disagree. I think we make human progress by identifying the problems we have and then working on solutions.
Other people have declared a 'war on plastics' or a war on EMF or a war on any damned thing that has attracted their attention. Once that 'war' has been declared than evidence specifically does not matter.
(Example: 'War on Plastics: rejecting the toxic plaque'
https://www.culturechange.org/e-letter-plastics.html, with quotes like '
Whether or not scientists can measure a substance should not be the point. ')
You keep up with this assumption that I need to be educated. And then you work to educate me with information which is not always true.
For example, a lot comes into the Earth - think of that Sun we have and that "174 petawatts of incoming solar radiation" that we get at any given time.
And you might want to do a quick search for the definition of the word 'chemical.' Chemicals are good.
I assert that people who abuse the word chemical as a synonym for 'toxic' are doing something bad, and usually are doing this intentionally.
Words have meaning. They reflect and create our shared reality. Misusing words is, at least to me, a form of abusing reality. I find misusing words in order to advance a personal or political interest to be, well, abusive.
The Dihydrogen Oxide 'scare' is an amusing, but also scary reflection of how people seem to think.
https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
From that page "A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States."
ie. 90% of those surveyed were willing to support banning water.
Use, or misuse, words and you can get 9 out of 10 people to ban water.