Guest
hello and good afternoon,
what is the situation with this request, are we getting blah blah blah again, or is there a possibility
that migros will address the concerns of its customers?
not one (1) glass bottle (mineral water) is available in the Migros beverage racks...
is this sustainable?
Guest
> the truck driver's accelerator foot has a 10 times greater impact on the environment
> than the "weight fairy tale"
Now, let's assume that an empty glass bottle weighs ~500g and holds 1 liter. Assuming it contains water (or something similar, lemonade, cola, etc.), the full bottle weighs ~1.5kg/liter.
An empty PET bottle, on the other hand, weighs ~30g and holds 1.5l - a total of 1.53kg, standardized to one liter content 1.02kg/litre.
In favor of glass bottles, let's ignore the fact that glass bottle containers (Harassen) are typically also significantly heavier than PET plastic six-packs. But then the glass bottles (full, per liter) are still ~50% heavier than PET bottles. So a truck with a limited payload would fit about a third fewer glass bottles.
If you know drivers who can save a third of the fuel by the way they drive (I'll leave out the claimed factor of 10 for your benefit), they would certainly be in great demand everywhere.
>It's called plastic for an obvious reason.
Because the material/polymer is produced artificially. And now?
Of course, it should not end up in the environment any more than various other pollutants and waste materials. Including used glass, by the way. But the solution is proper disposal, not a condemnation of plastics in general.
Guest
Your answer, produce even more "hazardous waste" because it doesn't end up in the environment,
your cost calculation is a little bit off, pay per gram of PETROCHEMICAL waste (about 3 centimes more than you are paying)...........
Just stop lying to yourselves and look at the problems pragmatically, POINT, if you have a brain and a mirror, ask yourself and for the rest, , . Keep dreaming lol and sad
Guest
Small current TV tip Arte now DAS GIFT der mafia, starts around 1989...
Guest
oh what's the point, mathematically speaking, we're dead longer than we're alive, pragmatically speaking, I'd at least like to be able to enjoy the little time I have in good health...........
Guest
It is called plastic for an obvious reason.
Because the material/polymer is artificially produced. And now? (petrochemicals have no half-life, so they are likely to accompany humanity to its demise)
I'm not sure if you have any idea about science, but I can claim that I have a degree in it, so please argue empirically and if possible at a level where I can also get involved, unfortunately I'm tired of making a big deal out of it, especially since I'm only interested in the facts, so please try to understand it, thank you.
Guest
Needless to say that it is called KUNST-stoff, simply because it is not natural...or.... Understood
Hmhmhm good. No, not good at all.
What about the taste? Everything still tastes different in PET!
And the microparticles in the food?
Mineral, drinks, sauces....
I don't think it's just the waste issue with PET bottles.
And minerals from distant countries...
Of course the transportation of minerals from Switzerland is just as expensive as from Norway, for example...
Water from Switzerland in glass is certainly no more expensive to transport than PET bottles from Norway.
It's time for returnable glass bottles.
Not everyone has to buy them. PET will certainly be around for a long time to come.
Guest
> petrochemical components have no half-life
> therefore they are likely to accompany humanity until their demise
Well, in the physical sense, no stable isotope - and for obvious reasons these are most of the ones we use in everyday life - has a half-life ;-)
But of course, you mean the degradation in the environment. This actually takes a very long time for plastics such as PET, but it is certainly possible. The most obvious way is through pyrolysis or fire (these are hydrocarbons after all), but in the longer term it can also be done biologically and chemically. Estimates speak of 500 years for a PET bottle, error range unknown, but probably correct as an order of magnitude*.
So: used PET bottles should not end up in the environment.
If we look at glass bottles for comparison. They are purely mineral (silicon dioxide) and therefore do not degrade biologically or chemically at all, at most through physical weathering. According to some estimates, a glass bottle can last a million years. Again, just an order of magnitude*. In addition, there is a very real risk of injury to humans and animals from discarded, broken glass bottles.
So: discarded glass bottles should not end up in the environment.
(* I would have to look for a primary source for more precise figures, I don't have time for that at the moment. But for the conclusions it doesn't matter whether it's 500 or 1000 years)
> I'm not sure whether you have any idea about natural sciences, but
> claim that I have a degree in it.
Likewise. I usually hold back on titles because I believe that arguments are more important than academic degrees, but if you ask... Dr. of Physics here.
And if I may say so openly, that's ...
>what's the point, mathematically speaking, we're dead longer than we're alive, pragmatically speaking, [...]
... as an "argument" unworthy of a scientist, if someone takes the time to calculate something for him.
> What about the taste? Everything still tastes different in PET!
See here:https://www.quarks.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/plastikflaschen-komischer-geschmack-ist-nicht-gefaehrlich/
... which of course doesn't change the fact that it doesn't taste good :-)
In my experience, this is rarely a problem if stored correctly, and then only with water. With lemon, juice, cola, ... I have never noticed a difference.
Anyway, that's a point in favor of glass bottles, of course.
> And the microparticles in food?
> Mineral, drinks, sauces....
2-3 pages ago a study was linked here that found no difference between glass and PET bottles.
> And mineral from distant countries...
... is self-evidently nonsense. We have enough sources for that closer to home. And it's cheaper too.
> It's time for returnable glass bottles. Not everyone has to buy them.
No problem with that ;-) If you prefer glass because of the taste, please. But please don't throw the bottles away carelessly after use, just like their PET counterparts.
N Bird
> petrochemical components have no half-life
> so they are likely to accompany humanity until its demise
Well, in the physical sense, no stable isotope - and for obvious reasons, most of the ones we use in everyday life - has a half-life ;-)
But of course, you mean the degradation in the environment. This actually takes a very long time for plastics such as PET, but it is certainly possible. The most obvious way is through pyrolysis or fire (these are hydrocarbons after all), but in the longer term it can also be done biologically and chemically. Estimates speak of 500 years for a PET bottle, error range unknown, but probably correct as an order of magnitude*.
So: used PET bottles should not end up in the environment.
#
I believe it is meant from a BIOLOGICAL point of view, not a physical one.
If you take stool samples you will find microplastics!
But does it come out completely? Is it 100% excreted?
If not, where is it deposited? What does it do in the body?
Fine dust, e.g. tire abrasion, will certainly not be found in the digestive tract. But what about in the lungs? And what about in the long term? Does it accumulate?
Is it excreted, if so how and completely?
Where else can I find microplastics?
Waste mafia... PET can be found everywhere in the environment.
And why disposable? There is also reusable PET, but unfortunately far too little. That would be at least "slightly" better for the environment.
#
Let's look at glass bottles for comparison. They are purely mineral (silicon dioxide) and therefore do not degrade biologically or chemically at all, at most through physical weathering. According to some estimates, a glass bottle can last a million years. Again, just an order of magnitude*. In addition, there is a very real risk of injury to humans and animals from discarded, broken glass bottles.
So: discarded glass bottles should not end up in the environment.
Well, at least they are not ingested in large quantities.
And returnable glass = deposit should not end up in the environment.
Microplastics are found in stool samples.
Yes, that's true.
But blaming PET bottles alone for this is going a bit too far.
The majority of these microplastics probably come from cosmetics, shampoo, shower gels and the like. These microplastics cannot be filtered out in sewage treatment plants, so they end up in rivers, where fish and plants ingest them and distribute them elsewhere, thus entering the food chain.
