The dirty dozen: 12 products you should avoid
Greener living is all about making changes each day. Sometimes, it's about setting aside unhealthy or resource-hogging products. Here are 12 to avoid.
Photo: bitmask/Flickr and MNN Comments
CFL light bulbs? Ruined the credibility of this article. CFL contains mercury. If it breaks you need a Haz-Mat team to clean it up. CFL should stand for Crappy Form of Light!!
From our article on 7 Tips for How to Live with CFLs:
"There's no need to panic if you break a CFL. Most bulbs are damaged when they're cold, and the mercury is likely to adhere to the bulb's debris. To be safe, ventilate the area. Using rubber or latex cloves — the kitchen variety should be fine — carefully gather up the ballast and broken glass with disposable paper towels. Wipe the floor carefully with more paper toweling, then double bag everything in Ziploc bags. Dispose as hazardous.... More
I feel that many of you are missing the point entirely. You should be using LESS to begin with. Regardless your stance on styrofoam; just stop consuming! Bring your own containers, own utensils, less waste to begin with. It's not just the throwing out issues, its the production issues as well. Look at the whole picture, the whole scope!!! good lord.
all good ideas. overseas where some only know word 'organic' in English the ONLY way to actually tell what is organic is eat what bugs eat....shiny pesticide laden fruits are not good and are not organic typically overseas...we need to start living with nature or we will continue hurting ourselves the most....
Thank you for this beautiful website.I need to know the preservatives and
chemicals found in processed food... thanks
If you whackos want to continue this nonesense, do everyone a favor and move to some mountain in Nepal and let the rest of us live our lives without this ridiculaus whining.
@groucho, youre not going to have a life to live in the future if you keep destroying the world you live in now. No one is forcing you live a greener life, these are only suggestions if you are looking to live that kind of life style. It is not complaining or whining either, these are facts. You do not have to change your life but please do not harass those that do want to live a green life. Also ridiculaus is not a word, may be you should pick up a book.
Although incandescent lamps do use 2 to 3 X as much electricity as CFL lamps, the cost benefit ends when the CFL lamps burn out (literally) and smokes within 3 months of install. They don't handle power fluctuations very well. Manufacturers of the CFL lamps need to build in more reliability to these products. A better solution would be LED lamps , but those are not yet widely produced, yet
First off, Styrofoam is a brand name, like Kleenex. Second, just because most people don't recycle their polystyrene foam, it doesn't mean it isn't recyclable. Maybe the author should be encouraging people to recycle. The average business that switches from polystyrene just ends up using those paper cups covered in wax, which cannot be recycled and don't break down in the landfill. If you choose to use polystyrene, look for recycling centers that take it.
#3 is misleading because it does not truly look at the pros and cons of certain tropical hardwoods.
Teak and some other durable hardwoods are actually "greener" than some woods for outdoor use because they do not require the use of stains or paint, nor the harsh chemicals used in pressure-treated lumber. Furthermore, although the initial cost of materials is high, the long run cost makes up for it in less maintenance and less frequent replacement. That too minimizes the overall.... More
Gee, thanks for the list of activities that I want to add to my lifestyle. I will have to add that to my goal of increasing my carbon footprint by 20%/year.
I dropped a load on my shoes. Then I drew a picture with it
Mercury is the second most toxic element! Would a little uranium in your house be ok? Just a little lead in your kids toys ok? Don't think so. Any amount of mercury is toxic and has no place in anyone's home, much less a "green" home!
LED lights are the green ones.
Every study to date shows the overwhelming majority of CFL bulb users throw them into the regular trash bag with everything else. The majority being sold are ending up in land fills. They are in fact more toxic than regular light bulbs, and factually don't last as long. They are far from green.
I have switched completely ti CFL bulbs, they are a hoax. They cost more initially, and my experience is that they rarely last as long as the incandescent bulbs. Add mercury and m growing stockpile of dead bulbs in a box awaiting recycling, and it all adds up to more cost' not less. And, i am certain, as already mentioned, that most folks simply throw then the garbage and don't recycle properly.
After three of my CFL's blew before an incandescent, I looked up the problem...apparently they last MUCH longer if left them on for more than four hours (in fact, the longer you leave them on the better).
CFL's are best for lights that are left on for long periods (they hate temp. changes). But, keep those incandescents in places like the bathroom and entryway.
I haven't had a burn out or either bulb since, and I'm getting oranges from my 40 watt CFL lighted orange tree,.... More
Where do you get your information - you think mercury is more toxic than, say, uranium and plutonium? Go handle a drop of mercury and then handle an equal amount of polonium; see which one kills you faster.
Actually, the mercury within a standard CFL bulb is less than the mercury released into the environment by the generation of the electricity saved by using the CFL.
Assuming you get the "typical" life out of the bulb, and that your electricity is generated by a typical coal plant (most common source in the US), the mercury NOT released in the generation of the electricity saved is greater than the mercury in the CFL bulb.
Doesn't mean you should dispose of the bulbs.... More
The information about batteries is misleading. First of all, contaminants don't "leech." They leach.
Secondly, I've worked on evaluating the environmental impact of landfills -- both solid waste and hazardous waste -- since 1982. I've never, ever, seen a landfill where metals were the major source of risk to human health and the environment. They don't readily enter leachate because of their typically low solubility. If they did dissolve in leachate, modern landfills have liners, leachate.... More
Mercury, a nerve poison, is a major ingredient in many products--from thermometers and fluorescent bulbs to batteries and old latex paint. A new study finds that landfill disposal of such products can chemically alter the mercury in them, not only rendering it more toxic but also fostering its release into the air.
Although even mercury in its elemental form is toxic, its most poisonous embodiment is methyl mercury, the result of a chemical modification by bacteria. The finding of.... More
Actually styrofoam is biodegradable. Like plastic it just requires the right conditions and takes a very long time. I avoid styrofoam primarily because over time using it adds up to a lot of money. Paper that is sent to a land fill does not biodegrade very quickly. It is better to recycle or burn the paper.
Styrofoam is nothing more than polystyrene plastic (the same stuff used to make all those model airplanes and such that you built as a kid) that has been puffed out with air or nitrogen to make it bulky, light and soft.
I try to remember to take storage containers out to restaurants to take my leftovers. I get some weird looks- but people offer the best compliment - "that's a great idea, i'm going to start doing that!". Beside the environmental help, I always feel a little weird about a stranger bringing me a container that's been sitting out, all while they've been touching tables, menus, money, etc. I know my container hasn't touched a snotty nose or anything.
Thanks for the great tips- if we all.... More
This list is a bunch of ill-considered platitudes that sound good but are in fact useless. You provide no facts and no science behind your comments. What little rational you provide is in the form of inuendo. If you want to actually make the case for one or more of these recommendations, find some real science to support them. What you will actually find is that you cannot because they are nonsense! To all of you dumping platitudes on this post, THINK!
Ps. Styrofoam is blue building.... More
Who is behind all theses fads that startup every once in a while! So far I've gone through the earth is not capable of supporting the human population fad in the 70's. Do you remember the earth is going cooling fad of the 70's . What about the earth is going to be consumed by garbage fad again of the 70's. They had a commercial on that one where an Indian is seen crying after looking at all the garbage that was in our streets. Now the earth is warming fad and the green fad.
So Drew, where are your facts and where is your science? Even if you scream loudly and point your finger it won't distract us from your failures.
Just as with anything in science, the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. Drew doesn't have to prove his skepticism, the person making the positive claims, which is the author of the article is the one who is burdened with proving their case.
You may agree or disagree to what extent they did that, but the need for evidence always falls at the claimant's feet.
Address the root cause. Too much population. If there were fewer children being born there would be less damage to the environment. Less population and then no need for massive amounts of foam and plastic, etc. Environmentally responsible should be having fewer kids.
I dusagree that the ever rising population is the issue, I believe it is something far more sinister. I see it as being about pure and simple laziness. We, as a people, seem to be addicted to the instant gratification and the disposable aspects of....well, everything. If more people would think before they acted, we wouldnt be having these issues. It is just pure laziness.
I'm not sure if you're advocating the use of artificial means of population control or not. Either way, I disagree with your statement. There's a wonderful documentary called "Demographic Winter" which explains how your approach will lead to the economic and social decline of many countries if not stopped. Controlling the population - especially by artificial birth control or abortion (generally what is supported by those who fall back on the "overpopulation of the earth" scenario) are not.... More
Could not agree more. Everyone should see a population graph of the last 500 years. It's insane. I'm fine with recycling and cleaning up after myself. I was raised that way. But no matter how much you conserve and cut back, a fast-growing population will continue to undermine your efforts. In my lifetime i've seen the same theme over and over: Degrading the quality of life to save lives. No wonder so many are on drugs. They need them!
save water by urinating in the urinal 3 times or until full before pouring it to the toilet bowl and flushed it once. my husband did it and also he was able to monitor his urine.
Not to be argumentative, but this is far worse than flushing the toilet. If people did this en mass, the environment would suffer far worse as the amount of waste in the water would be far higher. Dilluting our waste is essential due to the crap we put in our bodies and simply the sheer number of us all running around, peeing all over the place. FLush your toilet every time. It's more sanitary, it's better for the environment, and it doesn't make your house smell like a cesspool.
With the amount of water wasted - laundry, hand-washing dishes, etc, there is no fear that your body emissions will not be dilute enough by the time they reach the public sewer. The less water used the better. Don't start another urban myth.
Seriously? Didn't the stench bother you? Better to recycle wash water and flush every time.
I run the company coffee club, and one of my first initiatives was to eliminate styrofoam cups. The company provided everyone with a travel mug, and i had purchased a dozen ceramic mugs for visitors. I also purchased one package of paper cups, and bought wooden coffee stirrers instead of plastic ones. Just the one step of eliminating styro cups saved the landfill of 1500 cups per year. We are a small division of a HUGE company. Imagine wht the impact would be if all of the divisions.... More
So, now your company is wasting water and putting contaminating detergent down the drain washing the ceramic cups, and you're filling the landfill with slowly degrading paper cups that may be treated with plastic anyway to make them less likely to leak.
Maybe you could follow the example of the guy above who pees three times before flushing, and have everyone use the ceramic cups three times between washings? Or not.
So, now your company is wasting water and putting contaminating detergent down the drain washing the ceramic cups, and you're filling the landfill with slowly degrading paper cups that may be treated with plastic anyway to make them less likely to leak.
Maybe you could follow the example of the guy above who pees three times before flushing, and have everyone use the ceramic cups three times between washings? Or not.
But I haven't used toilet paper for a while. It's really easy in Europe: use a bidet. With the added advantage that your behind is always squeaky clean. I also don't use paper towels because I'm cheap. I have a bunch of dish towels so I can rotate them almost daily and I just wash them with my regular clothes. Oh, a final tip that isn't listed: you can save a lot of water by pissing in the sink.
Just step outside and piss in the yard,it only smells like old Mexico in the summer.
When you piss in the sink, do you take the dishes out first? You know, that was WTMI (way too much information).
The second point in this article is incorrect. Plastics with the #7 label are "other" meaning they are not one of the other 6 most common commodity plastics (e.g. HDPE, PETE, PS, etc). As such, #7 can include ANY other plastic that is not # 1 - 6. This includes poly(ethylene glycol), which is considered biocompatible, along with poly(butadiene), which is a rubber, among others. Therefore, telling people to avoid plastics with the #7 because those are the ones contain Bisphenol A is incorrect..... More
Agree with Plastics Engineer...the author of this article doesn't know what he's talking about. Most of the items that concern people because of Bisphenol A are actually made of PETE, which has recycling code #1, not #7.
Unless you actually compute the environmental impact of the product, you cannot compare them. For example, the author says 'for cosmetics, use vegetable-based oils instead of petroleum based'. Do you realize how much petroleum (fertilizer and fuel) and water is used to grow these vegetables? Way more than just using the oil directly. There is a web site EnvImpact.org ( http://envimpact.org ) that presents real.... More
Your point is well-made: often the writers of such articles, this one included, consider only their view of the primary environmental impact of product use (i.e., styro gets tossed, styro = BAD) without reasonable consideration of the alternatives.
Take the container example one user posted: impacts of a syro container are reasonably obvious (ends up in a landfill if not recycled, aside from what is used to produce it) but the ipacts for a given plastic or glass container are also.... More
