Dear Umbra,
After slurping away from a Nalgene bottle all summer, you struck me with the fear of petrochemicals. So I did some quick research on my own.
My conclusion is that your Aug. 2 column is misleading, even though I'm very sympathetic to your argument regarding plastics. Upon inspection, I learned that most of my Nalgene water bottles are made of plastic #2, HDPE, which you suggest is relatively benign. Perhaps you should clarify that your criticism and concern is aimed primarily at the newer Lexan product, not Nalgene's entire line of bottles. Indeed, it seems your recommendation could be that consumers avoid the #7 product, and instead purchase the #2 product (if we're willing to use plastics). Well, the good news is that the #2 product is less expensive than the #7.
It isn't usually my place to be a corporate defender, but I think your initial column simplifies the situation. If my logic is faulty, I hope you'll let me know!
Jay
Gettysburg, Penn.
Dearest Jay,
You're right. I completely fell down on the job and allowed my #7 Nalgene to lead me astray. Nalgene does indeed make both Lexan and HDPE bottles (though, alas, the snazzy new colors come only in the Lexan variety). As Tony Blair said, "I take full responsibility and apologize for any information given in good faith that has subsequently turned out to be wrong."
Go with glass.
I did simplify the situation. No, I take that back. The situation is simple. Drinks from non-plastic vessels taste better. Plastic is a non-renewable resource, its manufacture is energy- and resource-intensive, and in many cases highly toxic. It does not biodegrade. Polyvinyl-chloride manufacturing releases dioxins, as does the incineration of said PVC. Plastic used in food applications can get worn and torn and eventually harbor terrorist bacteria. Plastics recycling is also known as "downcycling," because each reiteration of your original bottle is of lower quality than the next, until at last the landfill beckons.
Glass is a better choice. I know this may give the lifecycle analysis people a conniption. I do not care. Let's face it: In most situations, you do not even need a plastic water container. If you're at a desk, or in the kitchen, or even at spinning class, glass or ceramic vessels are fine. There is no good reason to use plastic water bottles in everyday life unless you are a professional cyclist or mountain climber.
So instead of fretting about plastic resins and trying to keep all the numbers straight, pass right over the entire issue by using a different material. Set aside one plastic container for the infrequent times when nothing but a lightweight unbreakable material will do. And make that material a #2, #4, or #5 plastic. (Contrary to what I said previously, I wouldn't seek out #1 for those plastic-necessitating moments -- #2, #4, and #5 are better.) The numbers are on the bottom, people.
Contritely,
Umbra
Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things
Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting
Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo
Comments
View as Flat
tommy d Posted 12:57 am
19 Apr 2007
Permalink
dangerousbeans Posted 4:55 am
23 Jul 2007
Fortunately, this is not the only option for those of us that want a lightweight unbreakable bottle all of the time...there are some really nice stainless steel bottles available out there that fill this niche nicely. I recently purchased one made by Enviro Products, it holds 20.6 oz and the company makes 1L and 1.5L bottles as well. I believe that it is actually lighter than my old Nalgene bottle. AND THE WATER TASTES LIKE WATER, not plastic!!
Permalink
savedbydylan Posted 9:37 am
04 Sep 2007
Permalink
BenMiller Posted 8:26 am
09 Nov 2007
$0.01 In response to SavedByDylan, bottled water in the classroom!? Yuck. I'd really like to see bottled water made illegal, or at least heavily taxed as the ridiculous luxury item that it is.
$0.01 Guyot Designs, a company that I work for, makes some nice water bottles out of stainless steel: Guyot Designs Stainless Steel Bottles. They're unlined and single-walled.
Permalink
Lavelle Posted 7:46 am
09 Jan 2008
By the way if one wants the cleanest food or drinking container then glass is the best option.
Ceramics are made from clay and all sorts of things in clay may slowly diffuse out. Glazed ceramics can limit contamination from the clay. But then some glazed products are know to be toxic.
Metal containers also have problems. Many metal surfaces will oxidize which results in the metal entering the liquid or food as a metal cation. This is less of a problem with stainless steel. But it is still a problem. There are over 150 grades of stainless steel. In other words it gets complicated once you use something other than good quality clear* glass which is also cheap.
* no dyes, no painted surfaces, no nothing, just glass
Best,
Laurence
Permalink
Juliana6 Posted 1:27 am
09 Apr 2008
So I have this one plastic bottle that I love for mixing my protein shakes. On the bottom it has the little triangle, it's empty, but the letters PP are under it. What's that about?
If you're going "all glass", how do you buy things like yogurt and cottage cheese? Are you removing them and placing them in glass? Any ideas?
What about plastic baggies? Is it: "Plastic is plastic, bad, bad, bad" now, so go back to paper, waxed paper, foils?
Thanks for any advice!
Permalink
miah Posted 2:59 am
11 Apr 2008
Sigg makes great bottles for the outward bound. Small mouth is a love/hate relationship - great for drinking, poor for mixing. Give one a go and see what you think.
Cheers,
Miah
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:22 pm
15 Apr 2008
I'm not a cyclist, so I don't know whether the canteen is practical for that. It is not as easy to drink from as a plastic bottle. I refill a ceramic mug. Thought it looks like the 12 oz. bottle has a different type of cap.
So, am I inflicting more or less harm on the environment by using a long-lasting stainless steel bottle? I'm sure there are some consequences I'm not aware of and someone out there will have a good argument for why plastic is actually better.
Permalink
racje Posted 11:02 am
24 Apr 2008
Letting these plastics float around in the environment is not especially dangerous from a chemical standpoint. They don't leach toxins. But from a physical point of view they do make an unholy mess, and guck up animals' bellies, and never biodegrade. So if you use them, you want to be sure to send them to the recyclers.
The dread #3 (polyvinyl chloride: toxic in manufacture, in use, and in landfills) and #7 (nonrecyclable miscellany including polycarbonate/Lexan/BPA) are a different story--chemically and physically a total noxious mess.
Permalink
Seansm Posted 4:26 am
31 Oct 2008
In light of the lively and passionate discussion about the benefits and concerns around single use plastic water bottles versus stainless steel bottles, I want to get to the nitty gritty details of the issue.
Foremost, not one publication, discussion, comment or argument has included a complete life-cycle analysis of the two options. Yes there are a few obvious arguments in favor of stainless steel bottles, but without knowing the total inputs through a single bottles life-cycle we can't make a completely conclusive and compelling argument for the switch.
With the current discussion I could - while playing the devils advocate - argue that since stainless steel bottles are bigger and use more materials they likely use more energy and materials than plastic bottles. So the most appropriate action for communities to take is to improve recycling frequency of plastic bottles rather than banning them all together.
So what I want to find out is: what is the complete life-cycle of a stainless steel water bottle. More specifically, how much water, minerals and energy are necessary for creating one stainless steel water bottle. That should include everything used for mining, manufacturing and shipping.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my request.
All the best
Permalink