Washable nappies 'are just as bad for environment'

[BeckaBlue]

I dunno if this should go here or 'in the news' regardless i'm :banghead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/19/nappy19.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/19/ixhome.html

OH PUHLEASE!!!!!
I have trouble believing that using a bit more water and electricity compares to dumping billions of waste out on the ground! atleast w/ cd you're gauranteed that you bum waste goes where it belongs, and not seeping to the ground making people sick!

Plus for those of us who handwashed/sun dry they can't even use that argument ;)

and yk, ive never heard a babe allergic to cloth diapers (except wool covers), but kids are constantly allergic to certain types of disposables!

need more info on how this was done. they couldn't possibly be dumb enough to JUST ask a bunch of cd users a couple questions to get to this conclusion, could they?

Im thinkin tthat really the only reason for this is to make sposie users feel less guilty! :rolleyes but i think if you feel so guilty about usin sposies then you should probably be usin cloth!

[bliss]

how about all the water used in sposie manufacture? I would like to know who paid for this "study"/article. The Nutrasweet people have found it's perfectly good for us, too. I had a professor who said you could find a statistic to support anything. Obviously, cloth are better for the environment.

[Iarwain]

:rolleyes

I remember a study similar to this a number of years ago. That one was funded by....



....Huggies.

[Moon]

*excessive eyeroll*

The waist it takes to just manufacture a sposie is already more than it takes to wash a piece of cotton or hemp :doh

[milkmommy]

:rolleyes well here is the "report"
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/857406/1072214/

Deanna

[iplsmama]

I'm sorry I just find that very hard to believe. Maybe it was because they compared it to huge environmental impacts like acid rain and global warming. I don't know, it would be interesting to see how you even compare the two.

[lovemychildren]

I am kinda shocked that the one woman was like, "we've been waiting for this day for a long time"... because it was like she was taking full faith in a study of 2k people.. and I'd think with ANYTHING that is not a good idea... ya know/

[tree_hugger]

:rolleyes

I remember a study similar to this a number of years ago. That one was funded by....



....Huggies.


Exactly. I was just going to say, "I would be curious to know exactly who funded such a study."

I read an article about this report in my local paper today, and it said that 95% of nappy users use disposable. :td

And, on another topic, why are they called disposable? Because really, they are anything but, lasting hundreds of years after their few hours of use are over. :mad

[LauraK]

Was anyone successful in downloading the full pdf report? I am curious to read it and critique it. I understand using say 2000 people, that is sampling. You can get a decent idea of what is occuring in a population by looking at a small representative subset of that population. This is like how you test one piece of spaghetti in a pot and based on that one piece infer all the other pieces are done. I realize people are more variable than spaghetti but you can get a general idea based on a sample if the sample is selected properly. I am curious how they calculated "environmental impact". Anyway...I have lots of questions (I am a statistician, and yes you can "lie with statistics" but you can also lie with words and that does not mean they are not useful) and wonder if anyone was successful in downloading the full report and would be willing to e-mail it to me if they did. I want the full pdf that should be available at:

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/nappies_1072099.pdf

but which is not downloading for me.

PM me if you have it.
Thanks.

[milkmommy]

Was anyone successful in downloading the full pdf report? I am curious to read it and critique it.

Umm yes I could its 209 pages long so I'm not going to sit and critque it.

Deanna

[LauraK]

lol 209 pages! no wonder it would not download.