a full ban on plastic?

...?

...?

I know I’ve touched on this before with regard to water and plastic bottles but maybe it needs to be more direct? Reading a book from my library, ‘Go make a difference – over 500 daily ways to save the planet’ [by think books], tells it is proven that bottled is no better than tap water but, bottled water uses 1.5 million tonnes of plastic every year! from free water.

So why, do we need to do it for mushrooms, milk, water, compost and peat [especially peat…] etc., when there are alternates in paper/ card that are recyclable?

...?

...?

Last week I bought some meats and asked the superquinn butcher to take back the plastic & rap it in paper. Is that wrong? As I said before if my work is the earth then I should so my bit for it, rather than just view it from a monetary stance & give nothing back.

I’m not saying one should live like an ape in the jungle – I’m simply saying we should use our common sense and at least when shopping. If we can bring a smoking ban to Ireland surely we can find an alternate to plastic packaging? For the record, I preferred the old milk ‘bottles’.

14 replies
  1. C
    C says:

    A lot of the probably stems from the importance of packaging in the ‘marketing mix’. To differenciate, packaging designers work on eye catching and stylish designs to make their product stand out. I’d suggest millions are spent on each of the big bottled water companies to make their bottle more identifable. Looking at coca-colas patented ‘contour’ design shows how important this can be.
    Plastic is just far more adaptable and usable (from a design and packaging point of view) than paper / card.

    Maybe more taxes on plastic packaging… (something similar to a WEEE charge maybe?) would make the consumer think twice, and then ultimately make companies change their ways?

    With Easter just around the corner, we’re about to be given another example of the sheer idiotic overuse of plastic (and packaging in general) for an over-priced good.

  2. peter donegan MI Hort
    peter donegan MI Hort says:

    A Chara ‘C’

    great to hear from you again – and point very well made.

    More tax is one way – but in Ireland, as I have said before [and before that…] we are trying to reduce landfill.

    Here’s John Gormleys, Trevor Sargents and the Greens solution – in one big mans decision – if they can make it???

    BAN PLASTIC and it’s packaging on foods TODAY!

    Forget about tax on plastic bags and anything else – just ban the use of plastic and save the taxpayer money for once. Driving from Dundalk to Mullingar – apart from too much tax on petrol – tooooo much tax on a[any] car – and now…. intelligence – 3 toll bridges – privately owned?!!! why not just put one outside my gate!

    Stand up – and make a decision. We elected them. They represent us. We pay the wages. Do the job your supposed to do. Simple.

    Slán go foill, a chara
    peter

  3. Aido
    Aido says:

    I have to agree to a point, but there has been times where the plastic bottle has saved me. For example running out of petrol, wouldn’t get far using my hands. And, McDonalds sell juice in a plastic bottle with a sucky lid which prevents the kids from destroying themselves and cutting a day out short.

    So they have their uses, we spoilt ourselves with disposable commodities and now it’s slapped us in the face. The logical steps moving forward is to control it use. We don’t need plastic bags or mineral bottles. I remember as a kid finding a few TK glass bottles that was 20 pence of a refund a trip to the shop and 2 big time bars thank you very much.

    Milk bottles were great and I still enjoy a chilled bottle of Coke now and then there is nothing like it.

  4. peter donegan MI Hort
    peter donegan MI Hort says:

    A Chara Aido,

    point well made. In Holland the return of glass, for refund/ money, to my knowledge is still in practice. I don’t see why we can’t do it here. If we can introduce private hospitals to solve our health problem in this country [immoral/ wrong to the core], private tolls and a smoking ban – surely we can prevent plastic overuse????? or can we?!

    slán
    peter

  5. peter donegan MI Hort
    peter donegan MI Hort says:

    A Chara Charles – your right! bring on the ban.

    C – regarding Ken Livingstone – its not a campaign we need or as we do it in Ireland …. set up a group or comittee to consult with etc for the purposes of Dáil talk – It should be a no-brainer. Just Ban the plastic Bag and the bottle – NOW.

    Landfills etc – NO extra TAX or congestion charges just ban the plastic. Why can’t they be real men and make a decision??? We pay their wages.

    good reading all the same mate – good to hear from you again!
    slán agus beannacht
    peter

  6. Paul O'Brien
    Paul O'Brien says:

    First of all, it needs to be stated that the ‘substance’ referred to as ‘Fluoride’ is a misnomer – there is no such substance listed in the periodic chart of the elements, nor in the prestigious CRC handbook, nor in the sacred ‘bible’ of the pharmaceutical industry – the illustrious ‘Merck Index’. Instead, we find a GAS called Fluorine – and from the use of this gas in various industries such as aluminum manufacturing and the nuclear industry -certain toxic byproducts are created which have ‘captured’ fluorine molecules. One such toxic, poisonous ‘byproduct’ is called sodium Fluoride – which according to the Merck Index is primarily used as rat and cockroach poison and is also the active ingredient in most toothpastes and as an “additive to drinking water”. But sadly, there is much more to this sordid tale.

    Did you know that sodium Fluoride is also one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin Nerve Gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUORIDE) – (Yes, folks the same Sarin Nerve Gas that terrorists released on a crowded Japanese subway train!). Let me repeat: the truth the American public needs to understand is the fact that Sodium Fluoride is nothing more (or less) than a hazardous waste by-product of the nuclear and aluminum industries. In addition to being the primary ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, it is also a main ingredient in anesthetic, hypnotic, and psychiatric drugs as well as military NERVE GAS! Why, oh why then is it allowed to be added to the toothpastes and drinking water of the American people?

    Historically, this substance was quite expensive for the worlds’ premier chemical companies to dispose of – but in the 50’s and 60’s – Alcoa and the entire aluminum industry – with a vast overabundance of the toxic waste – SOMEHOW sold the FDA and our government on the insane (but highly profitable) idea of buying this poison at a 20,000% markup and then injecting it into our water supply as well as into the nation’s toothpastes and dental rinse. Yes that’s right folks, a 20,000% markup. Consider also that when sodium Fluoride is injected into our drinking water, its level is approximately 1 part-per-million (ppm), but since we only drink ½ of one percent of the total water supply, the hazardous chemical literally ‘goes down the drain’ and voila – the chemical industry has not only a free hazardous waste disposal system – but we have also PAID them handsomely in the process!!

    Independent scientific evidence over the past 50 plus years has shown that sodium fluoride shortens our life span, promotes various cancers and mental disturbances, and most importantly, makes humans stupid, docile, and subservient, all in one neat little package. There is increasing evidence that aluminum in the brain is a causative factor in Alzheimer’s Disease, and evidence points towards sodium fluoride’s strong affinity to ‘bond’ with this dangerous aluminum (remember it is a byproduct of aluminum manufacturing) and also it has the ability to ‘trick’ the blood-brain barrier by imitating the hydrogen ion thus allowing this chemical access to brain tissue.

    Honest scientists who have attempted to blow the whistle on sodium fluoride’s mega-bucks propaganda campaign have consistently been given a large dose of professional ‘black-listing’ and thus their valid points disputing the current vested interests never have received the ink they deserve in the national press. Just follow the money to find the ‘control’ and you will find prominent American families to be prominent ‘players’ in the scandal. In 1952 a slick PR campaign rammed the concept of ‘fluoridation’ through our Public Health departments and various dental organizations. This slick campaign was more akin to a highly emotional “beer salesman convention” instead of the objective, scientifically researched program that it should have been. It has continued in the same vein right up to the present day – and now sodium fluoride use has now become ‘usual and customary’.

    To illustrate the emotional vs. the scientific nature of this issue, just look at the response given by people (perhaps yourself included?) when the subject of fluoridation comes up. You need to ask yourself, “Is this particular response based on EMOTIONS born of TRADITION, or is it truly unbiased and based instead on thoroughly researched objectivity?” There is a tremendous amount of emotional, highly unscientific “know-it-all” emotions attached to the topic of ‘sodium fluoride’ usage -but I personally have yet to find even ONE objective, double blind study that even remotely links sodium fluoride to healthy teeth at ANY AGE. Instead, I hear and read such blather as “9 out of 10 DENTISTS recommend ‘fluoride’ toothpaste” etc. etc. etc. Let me reiterate: truly independent (unattached to moneyed vested interest groups) scientists who’ve spent a large portion of their lives studying and working with this subject have been hit with a surprising amount of unfair character assassinations from strong vested-interest groups who reap grand profits from the public’s ignorance as well as from their illnesses. (Just follow the money!)

    Do you have diabetes and/or kidney disease? There are reportedly more than 11 million Americans with diabetes. If it is true that diabetics drink more liquids than other people, then according to the Physicians Desk Reference these 11 million people are at much higher risk drinking fluoridated water because they will receive a much deadlier dose because of their need for higher than normal water consumption. Kidney disease, by definition, lowers the efficiency of the kidneys, which of course is the primary means in which fluoride (or any other toxic chemical) is eliminated from the body. Does it not make sense that these people shouldn’t drink fluoridated water at all? Cases are on record (Annapolis, Maryland, 1979) where ill kidney patients on dialysis machines died because they ingested relatively small amounts of SODIUM FLUORIDE from unwittingly drinking the ‘fluoridated’ city water supply? Will adequate warnings be given to people with weak kidneys, or will the real cause of such deaths be ‘covered up’ in the name of ‘domestic tranquility’?

    Concerning the ‘practice’ of putting sodium fluoride into drinking water, where did this insanity begin and WHO tried it first? From personal research, the very first occurrence of purposefully putting sodium fluoride into drinking water was in the German ghettos and in Nazi Germany’s infamous prison camps. The Gestapo you see had little concern about sodium fluoride’s ‘supposed’ effect on children’s teeth; instead, their reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to STERILIZE HUMANS and force the people in their concentration camps into calm, bovine, submission. (See for reference: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” written by Joseph Borkin.) Kind of shocking isn’t it folks!! Ah, but it gets even better.

    The following letter was received by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from a research chemist by the name of Charles Perkins. He writes:

    “I have your letter of September 29 asking for further documentation regarding a statement made in my book, “The Truth about Water Fluoridation”, to the effect that the idea of water fluoridation was brought to England from Russia by the Russian Communist Kreminoff. In the 1930’s Hitler and the German Nazis envisioned a world to be dominated and controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism. The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass-control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women, and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.

    “Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual’s power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. [A convenient and cost-effective light lobotomy? — Ott].

    “The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children’s teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty.”

    “When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go to Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plans to communize the world.”

    “I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years’ research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine — any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically.”

    Signed: CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October, 1954.

    Another letter needs to be quoted at length as well to help corroborate Mr. Perkin’s testimony. This letter was written by a brilliant (and objectively honest) scientist named Dr. E.H. Bronner. Dr. Bronner was a nephew of the great Albert Einstein, served time in a WWII prison camp and wrote the following letter printed in the Catholic Mirror, Springfield, MA, January 1952:

    “It appears that the citizens of Massachusetts are among the ‘next’ on the agenda of the water poisoners.

    “There is a sinister network of subversive agents, Godless intellectual parasites, working in our country today whose ramifications grow more extensive, more successful and more alarming each new year and whose true objective is to demoralize, paralyze and destroy our great Republic —- from within if they can, according to their plan — for their own possession.”

    “The tragic success they have already attained in their long siege to destroy the moral fiber of American life is now one of their most potent footholds towards their own ultimate victory over us.”

    “Fluoridation of our community water systems can well become their most subtle weapon for our sure physical and mental deterioration. As a research chemist of established standing, I built within the past 22 years 3 American chemical plants and licensed 6 of my 53 patents. Based on my years of practical experience in the health food and chemical field, let me warn: fluoridation of drinking water is criminal insanity, sure national suicide. DON’T DO IT!!”

    “Even in very small quantities, sodium fluoride is a deadly poison to which no effective antidote has been found. Every exterminator knows that it is the most effective rat-killer. Sodium Fluoride is entirely different from organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate needed by our bodies and provided by nature, in God’s great providence and love, to build and strengthen our bones and our teeth. This organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate, derived from proper foods, is an edible organic salt, insoluble in water and assimilable by the human body; whereas the non-organic sodium fluoride used in fluoridating water is instant poison to the body and fully water soluble. The body refuses to assimilate it.”

    “Careful, bonafide laboratory experimentation by conscientious, patriotic research chemists, and actual medical experience, have both revealed that instead of preserving or promoting ‘dental health’, fluoridated drinking water destroys teeth before adulthood and after, by the destructive mottling and other pathological conditions it actually causes in them, and also creates many other very grave pathological conditions in the internal organisms of bodies consuming it. How then can it be called a ‘health plan’? What’s behind it?”

    “That any so-called ‘Doctors’ would persuade a civilized nation to add voluntarily a deadly poison to its drinking water systems is unbelievable. It is the height of criminal insanity!”

    “No wonder Hitler and Stalin fully believed and agreed from 1939 to 1941 that, quoting from both Lenin’s ‘Last Will’ and Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “America we shall demoralize, divide, and destroy from within.”

    “Are our Civil Defense organizations and agencies awake to the perils of water poisoning by fluoridation? Its use has been recorded in other countries. Sodium Fluoride water solutions are the cheapest and most effective rat killers known to chemists: colorless, odorless, tasteless; no antidote, no remedy, no hope: Instant and complete extermination of rats.”

    “Fluoridation of water systems can be slow national suicide, or quick national liquidation. It is criminal insanity ——- treason!!”

    Signed: Dr. E.H. Bronner, Research Chemist, Los Angeles

    Apparently, the public outcry by Dr. Bronner and others precluded the fluoridation of public water systems for a season – but soon thereafter, the Food and Drug Administration allowed this deadly poison to be put in ‘toothpaste’, and our dentists were systematically brainwashed into providing ‘fluoride treatments’ to their many patients. Of course, today many major metropolitan areas have a minimum of 1 parts per million sodium fluoride systematically added to their water supply and more areas are seeking to add this poison every year. Add to this the fact that bottling companies (soft drinks, juices, etc.) use fluoridated water to make their products – is it any wonder that people can no longer think clearly and ask pertinent questions of their elected and ecclesiastical leaders? Is it also a mystery why so many top Nazi mind control scientists were brought to America by the CIA and their infamous ‘Operation Paper Clip’?

    If you believe all of this is ‘just a coincidence’ – go ahead and keep brushing your teeth with your ‘fluoride’ toothpaste and sucking on your sodium fluoride enhanced Coke or Pepsi product – for ignorance truly is bliss and you truly deserve what you get.

    Mothers, if your little ones are having trouble concentrating at home or in school, or have been diagnosed as ‘attention deficit’ – perhaps you would be well advised to look for the culprit (and the solution to the problem) no further than your home medicine cabinet (your tube of toothpaste) and your friendly neighborhood school’s water fountain!!

  7. peter donegan MI Hort
    peter donegan MI Hort says:

    Hi Paul,

    whether I agree or not aside – I do appreciate the time taken to comment, but, I deleted your 2nd post, as I found it difficult to get past the first paragraph of this one.

    This is a primarily a horticultural, green, eco [& a very fun & ‘friendly’] blog – I don’t wish to discourage any views & or comments, but, it also must be enjoyed by other readers.

    That said this probably requires a blog of its own with a link; or some snappy bullet points. Maybe you could do this and merge your [2] comments. thanks again for taking the time and i look forward to your return.

    slán go foill
    peter

  8. peter donegan MI Hort
    peter donegan MI Hort says:

    I’d have to agree with you on this one Peter. In fact I would have been tempted to delete both comments and leave comment “message” to the original author asking if he could do exactly as you just request.

    As anyone knows when writing for the Web put the most important information first, usually that means in the first paragraph.

    I read the first para and gave up! It appears as if most of the above is a copy and paste, if so he could have simply linked.

    Keep on Truckin’

  9. peter donegan MI Hort
    peter donegan MI Hort says:

    A Chara ‘C’

    for those who may certain words and assume this post has taken a turn for the worst – I assure you it hasn’t. ‘C’ has a sense of humour and mildly rhetoric of yesterdays post here’s Godwins law
    “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

    Godwin’s law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

    The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin’s law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[5] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.

    Interesting reading – and as always an admirable sense of humour!

    peter

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave A Comment...