Nappies - where are all the environmentalists!

thetraveller_2

tipplehead wrote: »

Hi there,

My son was born with problems with his "boy bits", when we went to the urologists we were advised to put him in cloth nappies because there is much evidence coming through that disposables have a major effect on fertility in males. The two urologist we see are participating in research studying the effects of disposable wear on the development of the testicles and they said the results are very worrying. Apparently disposables raise the temperature of the testicles, due the the chemical reactions that are taking place inside the nappy, this high temperature is limiting the growth and function of the testes. They also said that there is a chemical still found in major brand disposables that causes toxic shock (although the industry has said that it has taken the chemical out, this research has found it still present in disposables, at least 3 times more than the maximum recommend exposure was found) - this is the same chemical that was banned in sanitary wear. This chemical can leak from the nappy in crystals and has been found in the urethras of the children studied. I got the impression that in the field of urology disposables are viewed as the enemy. My boy now wears cloth!

so the nappy producers are inadvertantly favouring the more eco friendly families!

we use reusables and at 12p per wash which does between 25-30 nappies and an inital outlay of £90 (bambino mio unused but someone didnt want them) so 2 washes a week 24p so £12.48 a year.
these will do till she is three so £37.44.
3 years of nappies £127.44 as aposed to 10p per nappy and 7per day so £4.90 per week £254.80 per year or £764.40 for the three years.

also if we have a second then even if the fuel costs double the nappy cost would only be £74.88 for the three years.

no late night dashes to the all night supermarket in the car when we have run out of disposiables.

oh and another thing they smell better when she is wearing them. whan she has had disposiable on she has a nasty plastic smell!

now for my slightly contrivertial comment.:D
disposiables have there place. we keep a couple in the car and changing bag just incase we are caught out.:shhh:

ah well i like the reusables.:T

Ben84

freddykruggar wrote: »

The crystals that are used are perfectly safe.

They look exactly like sugar and are called SAM or Super Absorbant Material. When exposed to liquid they swell many times and end up looking like wall paper paste, you may have seen some gel on your baby.

A very similar stuff is used in macdonalds milk shakes.

Somehow that doesn't make me feel better about nappies or McDonalds :rotfl:

freddykruggar wrote: »

Also dont forget all the harmful detergents you wash down the drains when washing your reuseables. You may think you are being green at home by not throwing nappies away, but you are just moving the chain further down the line and causing problems elsewhere.

As for land fill, modern nappies dont have a plastic outer cover, it is a micro pourous ultra thin cloth sheet that degrades very fast. Modern technology has moved on very fast

A fair point, reusable nappies aren't without any environmental costs. Energy to run the washing machine, as well as energy to produce the washing powder, its packet and transport it to your house. Water pollution from the detergent itself too. There will also be some solid waste to landfill, the ash from power plants to make the energy used and sewage sludge that is removed from waste water.

However, it seems reasonable to suggest that disposable nappies consume more energy in their production and transport. One box of detergent will wash a huge pile of nappies, so it seems much more economical. Disposables might not need washing, but they need to be thrown out every time and must create a lot more solid waste to landfill.

The production of plastics, glues and dyes also create waste chemicals that have to be disposed of, so disposables may introduce more chemicals to the environment than washing reusable nappies in detergent will.

You can buy ecological detergents now that claim to have a much reduced environmental impact. I'm not sure you could use them for nappies however. I've been a bit disappointed with the washing performance of most ecological detergents so far, but then I have never liked phosphate free washing powder.

It's difficult for me to weight up all the factors without hard facts, but it seems very likely that disposables will create more pollution, waste and consume more energy than reusable.

greenbee

A lot of people are disappointed with the performance of ecological detergents... generally on whites. This is because we don't judge the cleanliness of our whites on how CLEAN they are, but on optical brightness. Ecological detergents don't have brighteners in them... so we don't think they're 'whiter than white'.

So you can either compromise and use ecological detergents for colours, and conventional ones with brighteners for whites, or you can try to get used to the fact that you're whites don't glow!

There are always non-chlorine laundry bleaches for the things that really need it. And don't forget, the sun (when it comes out ) is a very powerful (and free) bleaching agent... so leave your whites out for as long as possible if its shining.:D

Sarahsaver

There will also be some solid waste to landfill

If there is poop in the disposables and the council bury them they are AFAIK breaking the law. I know someone who was going to mount a legal challenge against the council here but I don't know the outcome.

Are people really so lazy they would rather have poo in their bin than flush it down the loo :eek:

geordie_joe

Sarahsaver wrote: »

There will also be some solid waste to landfill

If there is poop in the disposables and the council bury them they are AFAIK breaking the law.

It's been over 20 years since I changed a nappy, but I seem to remember that if you didn't want poo in the nappy when you chucked it in the bin you had to buy the greased teflon kind.

Sarahsaver wrote: »

I know someone who was going to mount a legal challenge against the council here but I don't know the outcome.

I'm all for taking legal action against the council.

Sarahsaver wrote: »

Are people really so lazy they would rather have poo in their bin than flush it down the loo :eek:

Yes, that's the whole point of disposable nappies, you take them off, fold them up and throw them in the bin.

If you want to take them off then run up stairs and scrape all the poo into the toilet then you use terry ones.

PS. I don't have nappies and don't have a bin. The former being due to my kids being in their twenties now, and the later due to the council deciding a bin would spoil the look of our street. So they said I have to keep the rubbish in a black bag in the kitchen. When I got them round to look at my kitchen and tell me where I could put a black bag without falling over it every time I went into the kitchen they came up with a brilliant idea.

"Screw hooks into your kitchen walls and hang carrier bags from them. You can put your rubbish in them, and on collection day you can gather them up and put them all into a black bag an put it out for the bin men. By the way, would you like to sign our petition to stop the local super market giving out carrier bags?"

I can't say what I said to that, but the gist of it was "Come the revolution mate, you are first against the wall. And you won't be getting a blindfold either, I want to see the fear in your eyes when I pull the trigger."

Councilors, shoot them all and put them out of their stupidity!

Ben84

Sarahsaver wrote: »

There will also be some solid waste to landfill

If there is poop in the disposables and the council bury them they are AFAIK breaking the law. I know someone who was going to mount a legal challenge against the council here but I don't know the outcome.

Are people really so lazy they would rather have poo in their bin than flush it down the loo :eek:

I don't think there is law against burying this stuff. Most sewage plants strain the waste to remove solids which are sent to landfill. Previously they were dumped at sea, but that stopped a few years ago.

Ben84

greenbee wrote: »

A lot of people are disappointed with the performance of ecological detergents... generally on whites. This is because we don't judge the cleanliness of our whites on how CLEAN they are, but on optical brightness. Ecological detergents don't have brighteners in them... so we don't think they're 'whiter than white'.

So you can either compromise and use ecological detergents for colours, and conventional ones with brighteners for whites, or you can try to get used to the fact that you're whites don't glow!

There are always non-chlorine laundry bleaches for the things that really need it. And don't forget, the sun (when it comes out ) is a very powerful (and free) bleaching agent... so leave your whites out for as long as possible if its shining.:D

They do put in optical brighteners and sometimes a little blue dye to enhance the 'whiteness', but the problem we've had was our very hard water. A lot of the newer formulations don't clean well with such hard water. I find the clothes come out stiff with a stale odour.

I have tried many alternatives in the past, some of them ecological brands like Ecover, and other regular phosphate free brands like Ariel, but we're still using the old type big box powders with lots of phosphate in because nothing else has worked very well.

I did contact some companies who make detergents, and they said that with our hard water I would need to use the highest recommended dose. For many of the new formulations this is easily two or three times more than the amount I use of the old type powder. Following the instructions on one packet for medium soiling in hard water resulted in more powder than I could fit in my washing machine's dispenser! However, 2-3 tablespoons of phosphate based powder work fine in my 6 Kg automatic machine. The new formulations claim to be better for the environment, but do they take in to account consumers in areas with hard water having to pour 2-3 times as much product down the drain. You could easily wipe out all the environmental benefits by doing this, and you'll consume and throw away a lot more packaging too.

squashy

I found that when I used disposables I had more leaks onto babygrows etc so half as much washing anyway! I bought most of my nappies second hand so apart from the cost of royal mail sending it to me they have cost nothing in "production costs". I am on baby number three aswell!

Another factor in terms of disposables is that many people also bag the nappies up in plastic nappy sacks- or one of those godawful nappy wrapper bins- before they go out with the waste. The plastic surrounding the nappy means it takes even longer to decompose.

mummygems

I have just changed from Pampers to Nature Babycare. For me, like another poster, reuseables are just not for me but I wanted to change to a more eco-friendly one. The cost is more or less the same as Pampers but I have to say I have noticed a huge difference in DD1's ezcema since changing over (we also changed from Simple wipes to Nature Babycare wipes). Her skin looks so much better and she isnt constantly scratching.

Also, the crystal in the nappies ARE harmful and not only if they are swallowed/inhaled. Whenever these crystals touch DD1's skin they cause such a severe reaction that she has to be sat in the bath so half an hour to ease her skin.

Also with regards to washing, I dont worry so much about the brightness so long as things are clean lol. I use the Eco Senstive washing tablets from the Simply Washing range online and have found this to be excellent on all the clothes and also on my little ones skin.

Maybe if we go on to have baby 3 we will try reuseables.

sandieb

I haven't read ALL this thread so apologise if the following blog has been mentioned already

There's an interesting section on re-usable nappies

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/monthwithoutplastic/2008/08/nappies_a_messy_situation.html