date
newest »

message 1:
by
Adam
(new)
May 19, 2017 07:19AM

reply
|
flag

Still, you may appreciate this article from Reason.com
Katherine Mangu-Ward
Sep. 1, 2015
http://reason.com/archives/2015/09/01...
Here is a list of things that are thicker than a typical plastic grocery bag: A strand of hair. A coat of paint. A human cornea.
High-density polyethylene is a miracle of materials science. Despite weighing less than 5 grams, one bag can hold 17 pounds, well over 1,000 times its own weight. At about a penny apiece, the bags are cheap enough for stores to give away and sturdy enough to carry home two gallons of milk in the evening and still be up to the task of scooping Cujo's poop the next morning.
KM-W goes on to provide context, which per usual is considerably more complex than the usual journalist's characterizations
(Katherine Mangu-Ward is no mere "journalist")
The finish:
The technology behind plastic grocery bags is so useful it won a Nobel Prize. Employing an unimaginably small amount of base material, manufacturers can create tools of surprising strength and durability. Far from being the environmental threat activists make them out to be, plastic bags are not particularly to blame for clogged sewers, choked rivers, asphyxiated sea animals, or global warming. Instead, they are likely our best bet for carrying all of our junk in a responsible manner.
Don't believe the haters. Plastic bags are good for you.

Still, you may appreciate this article from Reason.com
Katherine Mangu-Ward
Sep. 1, 2015
http://reason.com/archives/2..."
Thanks for that. I agree about sea animals, though they did contribute quite a lot to visible rubbish on the street and quite a few tonnes did go to landfill.
I struggled to find a Nobel Prize that fits unless it's the 1963 Chemistry one, but that was for plastics in general - do you know which one she is referring to?

kmw@reason.com
and copy me:
jimsusky<{}>yahoo<{}>com
You may appreciate Reason.com - lots of very smart folks - who mostly are aware of their own "confirmation biases", respect actual evidence (that is are skeptical), and seem to know how to innumerate (and how sadly unusual is THAT?).
In particular I like Ron Bailey's popular science writing and his:
End of Doom a tonic for the various innumerate Chicken Little's and their unsupported theories:
https://reason.com/people/ronald-bail...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/End-Doom-Env...
(nice summary of Chicken Little Stories on the review at the top)