From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Styrofoam Cups
Date: 20 Nov 1992 00:44:17 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: andersmc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU's message of 29 Oct 92 16:18:54 GMT

> A paper put out by a Canadian university proves [that styro-
> foam cups are better for the environment than paper cups].

=x= You are referring to the Hocking study.  Since it comes
from academia, Hocking's study has been cited more widely
than the previous studies dones by the Franklin Associates
(a plastics industry lobbying organization).  This is quite
unfortunate, since Hocking's work merely replicates the flaws
of those previous studies.

=x= I pointed out some of those flaws in an article posted
to this newsgroup in September.  I'll use excerpts from that
article to respond to the specific points you brought up.

> A word about [styrofoam] cups.  They are easier to make than
> paper cups.

Sep> Flaw:  Evaluating paper-manufacturing with a worst-case
     scenario; as if each paper cup is made from virgin forest
     pulp, bleached with chlorine bleach, with byproducts
     dumped into the water.  It is true that most paper mills
     operate in this damaging fashion, but they don't *need*
     to.  [It's a] matter of what's endemic to the materials:
     Polystyrene is always made using styrene, benzene, etc.,
     and nobody knows how to make it any other way.

> They are easier to recycle than paper cups. (That is because
> most paper cups have a wax over the paper. That wax needs to
> be removed.)

Sep> Flaw: [Evaluating] styrofoam recycling [as] a best-case
     scenario . . . . The high volume/mass ratio, the very
     feature that makes [them] cheaper to transport, also makes
     them more expensive to recycle!  And when it's contaminated
     with food (as it is when it's used to hold a beverage), it
     gets even *more* expensive to recycle.

=x= Also, wax isn't quite so big a problem as paper cups with a
plastic inner coating.

> The wastes involved in making a paper cup are almost 200 times
> as much as the styrafoam cup.

Sep> Flaw:  Conducting a quantitative analysis on waste
     (measuring volume and mass and repercussions of same) but
     not conducting a qualitative analysis on it (evaluating
     how damaging certain compounds are to the environment).

=x= Some (but not enough) of the qualitative details are laid
out in an article attached below.  And speaking of the damage
of those compounds:

Sep> Flaw:  Noting that styrofoam manufacture has mostly phased
     out ozone-depleting CFCs, but not taking into account the
     fact that these have been replaced with other, less- (but
     not [nearly] enough less-) damaging ozone-depleting gases.

=x= Also, take note that those studies, even with all their
pro-styrofoam biases and skewed variable selections, could
only conclude that styrofoam cups were *slightly* better than
paper cups.
    <_Jym_>
================================================================
[From EcoNet en.recycle Conference]

=> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 17:45:56 EST 
=> Sender: ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES DISCUSSION LIST <ENVST-L@brownvm.brown.edu> 
=> From: Daniel Newman <70363.2424@COMPUSERVE.COM>
 
GOVERNMENT PURCHASING PROJECT 
P.O. BOX 19367 
WASHINGTON, DC 20036 
(202) 387-8030 


THE PROBLEMS WITH POLYSTYRENE 
by Eleanor J. Lewis and Eric Weltman 
 
     The attempted rescue of polystyrene from the landfill of
consumer perception is underway.  This operation, financed,
operated and publicized by the polystyrene industry, is in the
form of recycling programs.  Polystyrene recycling, however, is
a sham, and hardly begins to address the environmental and human
health problems associated with this product.
 
     Polystyrene manufacturers like to claim that their products
are "ozone-friendly", but this is only partially true.  Some
polystyrene is manufactured with HCFC-22, which Du Pont produces
and advertises as "environmentally acceptable."  Acceptable,
that is, if you can accept a gaping hole in the ozone layer.
Though less destructive than its chemical cousins, CFC-11 and
CFC-12, it is still a greenhouse gas and harmful to the ozone
layer.  In fact, according to a 1992 study by the Washington,
DC-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, HCFCs
are more destructive to the ozone layer than previously
believed.
 
     Polystyrene has serious negative effects on workers and
consumers.  According to a report by the Foundation for
Advancements in Science and Education (FASE) in Los Angeles, the
component styrene leaches into food from polystyrene foodware
and was found by the Environmental Protection Agency in 100
percent of human fat tissue samples, as well as 100 percent of
human nursing milk samples.  The polystyrene industry admits
that styrene leaches from its products into food, but denies any
harmful effects.  According to the FASE, styrene is a neurotoxin
and a suspected human carcinogen.
 
     Styrene has been linked with increased levels of
chromosomal damage, abnormal pulmonary function and cancer in
workers at styrene and polystyrene plants.  Permitted exposure
limits in both Germany and Finland are much lower than in the
United States, based on the level at which workers suffer
chromosomal abnormalities.
 
     Manufacturing polystyrene is also a major producer of
pollution.  In 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency ranked
the 20 chemicals whose production generated the most hazardous
waste.  Polystyrene was number five.
 
     Unlike aluminum, glass and paper recycling, polystyrene
recycling does not save energy.  Polystyrene recycling programs
are heavily subsidized by the virgin polystyrene manufacturers
to encourage purchases of their products.  Furthermore,
polystyrene recycling is not "closed loop"; collected
polystyrene cups are not remanufactured into cups, but into
other products, such as packing filler and cafeteria trays.
This means that more resources will have to be used, and more
pollution created, to produce more polystyrene cups.
 
     Many government entities have taken action against
polystyrene.  In 1989, the U.S. Department of the Interior
banned polystyrene in its Washington, DC headquarters.  The
Canadian House of Commons switched from polystyrene cups to
china cups in committee and caucus rooms, reducing the number
or polystyrene cups used by 400,000 per year.  In January 1989,
the State of Oregon banned the purchase and use of polystyrene
in food service units in the state government and by vendors
having food service contracts with the state.  Both Portland,
Oregon and Suffolk County, New York have banned polystyrene foam
food containers from use in restaurants and retail food stores.
 
     Halting polystyrene use is not only environmentally sound,
but economically beneficial as well.  The cafeteria at Ohio's
Bowling Green University switched from disposable to washable
dishes and saved over $32,000 in one year, serving 14,000
people daily.  The State of Vermont developed an analysis of
a hypothetical school serving only 200 meals a day.  The model
demonstrated that, adding in all the costs of both options
(i.e., buying a dishwasher and reusable plates versus
continuously purchasing disposables), purchasing reusable
dishes is the least expensive option.
 
     THE GOVERNMENT PURCHASING PROJECT was started by Ralph
Nader to promote public purchasing which advances the public
interest.  Government procurement has stimulated innovations in
the aviation and computer industries, encouraged the production
of quieter lawnmowers and helped introduce airbags into
automobiles.  This purchasing power -- on a federal, state and
local level almost a trillion dollars a year -- can also promote
energy efficiency, pollution prevention, recycling and other
societal goals.
 
     For more information contact: The Government Purchasing
Project, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC, 20036; (202) 387-8030.