NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/kids/28551

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 3.6 KB | 74 lines

Newsgroups: misc.kids
Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!torn!blaze.trentu.ca!trentu.ca!bwolfe
From: [e-mail] (BEN WOLFE)
Subject: Re: Diapers and the Environment
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Trent University Computer Services Department
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:28:00 GMT
Lines: 62

Elise Wade writes:

> My, my, my *what* was I thinking?  Of course, Ben Wolfe is more
> of an expert on everything than I (or National Geographic).  And,
> he is just naturally the most morally superior person on the face
> of the earth.  Us morally inferior low lifes like myself just
> keep forgetting to bow to the wonderfully superior person! ;) ;)


Anyone looking for context for this remark might find it useful to recall
that a couple of months ago Elise Wade fabricated information about
epidurals during a net discussion and lied about references. I had a part
in pointing this out, which I don't imagine she liked.

I'm sorry that people are taking comments on diapers and the environment
as some kind of personal attack. We all do what we can as parents, and we
all care about the future of our children. The problem is that the
information channels tend to be monopolized by large companies with a huge
financial stake in issues like this one. The disposable diaper business
is worth more than $400 million a year in Canada and billions a year in
the U.S. Major companies like Procter and Gamble and Kimberley-Clark have
been very successful at paying for research studies that support their
environmental claims, and then selling this biased information to the
public as scientific fact.

If you see studies by Franklin Associates or Arthur B. Little cited in
support of the claim that disposable diapers are no more harmful to the
environment than cloth diapers, take them with a grain (in fact a pillar)
of salt, because they are industry-sponsored propoganda. Some contrary
studies were sponsored by the American Association of Diaper Services,
and what they say is no surprise either.

Unfortunately, independent researchers who take the time to read both
and find the middle ground of truth don't have multi-million dollar
advertising and public relations budgets, so you rarely read what they
have to say in the pages of major magazines. All I was trying to do in
getting involved in this thread was make it clear that the Garbage
Magazine article a couple of people were quoting in support of the use
of disposables is based on exactly this suspect data.

Some of you have also referred to garbage archeologist William Rathje,
who has analyzed the waste in dumps in major cities in various parts
of North America and found fewer disposable diapers and fast food
containers than some people expected. (Diapers average about 2%.)
Rathje's work is important as far as it goes, but his credentials as an
environmental analyst are less than stellar. A couple of years ago he
generated a wave of snorts and chuckles from coast to coast in Canada
when he said that disposable diapers are actually a great idea because
they'll absorb all the toxic waste we throw into our landfills...

Yes, there are all sorts of ways that we can do good things for the
planet, and some of them are a lot more important than what kind of
diapers are padding our children's bums. All I'm saying is this: if
you think disposables have no greater environmental impact than
cloth diapers, you've bought into a convenient advertising claim,
not a fact. P&G in particular was charged with misleading
advertising in Ontario and New York over its environmental claims,
and chose to settle out of court.

Ben Wolfe
Peterborough Green-Up