Talk:Plastic shopping bag

Neutrality

Firstly, much of this content seems to be the same as that on plastic bag. As I mentioned on Talk:Plastic bag:

This article sounds very biased to me in favour of one particular type of biodegradable plastic. I'm sure they are very good, but I believe there are several disadvantages to this type of plastic which are not mentioned in the article. I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to fix this myself though. Tjwood 10:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any point? By the time the bag is anyplace needing to bio-degrade, it's usually accompanined by 99% more stuff that's not biodegradable either, and is in a place so toxic that nothing's going to be able to enjoy the area for centuries anyhow (eg: landfills).

If you think there are disadvantages then be specific - vague generalisations wont do. I cant see anything wrong with the article and I dont see why the same points should not be made under the "plastic bags" heading. People will not read the whole encyclopaedia. MShaw 29 Jan 2006

The article is dominated by the oxo-biodegradable plastic topic, and seems like an advertisement more than anything else. I'd like to see what disadvantages there are to a product like this.

I have removed the NPOV tag from this article, as any editor has had ample time to work out problems there may have with the article. Besides, it seems to have improved with time and looks reasonably NPOV. Any editors who disagree should by all means edit, or even replace the tag, but not if it's just there to call everything below into question. Envirocorrector 15:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco

Please note: San Francisco has banned plastic bags. This should be noted under the US section. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.99.6.61 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Balanced

April 17, 2007 This should be a factual article about the subject. Efforts should be made to give balanced points of view. This is no place for a policial blog. RLSheehan

I agree. I believe this article is particularly weak in outlining what the problem with plastic shopping bags is, and why solutions are being sought.--Jrsnbarn 01:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 22, 07 The "disadvantage" section had been rambling and weak. I reworded it to provide the key points which readers should know about. It reads much cleaner now and still provides the same key points. RLSheehan

I appreciate your efforts, but it's important in an encylcopedia to source your material. I have left your 'key points' in, but would appreciate your finding references. If you can find a better source than I have, please add to or even replace mine. However, let it stand until you do.--Jrsnbarn 14:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several good refernce books are listed: read them to understand more about plastics, waste management, and recycling. Rlsheehan May 2,07

The "disadvantage" section is pivitol to this article, whether you are a proponent of plastic bags or not. We need to find specific references so that these disadvantages are verifiable. Asking the reader to read the books listed is more than should be required to check the accuracy of the article. Therefore, if these disadvantages are indeed true, then you should be able to cite the page number and book from where you found them. If you can't, then I think you're making them up. --Jrsnbarn 12:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Reference books are usually better sources than a newspaper article or a politial web page. There are also several linked Wikipedia articles for readers to get more detail (that's why they are there). An encylopedia can, and should, have valid summary points to help the reader. Rlsheehan

This article is moving much farther away from any type of balance (which is a WK requirement). Rather than getting into an editing war, I suggest that pet peeves and political agendas be limited to the discussion pages and not placed in the article. Rlsheehan July 20, 2007

I disagree. Nobody thinks the advantages section should be reworded to say "some people think plastic bags are made of plastic." It's because that is factual, cited information. The disadvantages section has the same right to being clearly written, without useless hedging. Why? Because it is also factual, cited information. The only real problem with this article is that the reduction section needs to be split out into the countries immediately below. Envirocorrector 18:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved all the info in the "reduction" section down into the individual countries. Several of those are now tagged for citation, so I hope the original editors have sources. I also reworded a little and think the question of paper vs. plastic is more neutral (which is a point that should always be clear - nobody really knows or agrees on paper/plastic because it depends on whether you care about biodegradability, recycling rates, atmospheric pollution, or just plain usability). Envirocorrector 09:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most studies of paper vs plastic I have seen favor plastic based on source reduction and energy usage. Many people use a waste hierarchy to help prioritize sometimes conflicting facts. When given a personal choice, however, I usually pick paper bags because I reuse them more than plastic. Rlsheehan July 23, 2007

References

Neither reference nor link should be made to commercial sites for bags of any construction. Pkgx 4 May 2007

A review of citations and external liks showed several which are commercial, are not active, or are not valid sources. These have been eliminated. Pkgx 29 May 2007

While I see the point of avoiding commercial content, it's a pity that the very clear information at LINK REMOVED ...among other things, there are catalogue pics of the product, which would be great in the article, but I guess don't make the criteria Feroshki (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No spamming in talk either please --Shakehandsman (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

photodegradation

I just deleted the second half of

"Some people are encouraging bags made of biodegradable polythene film as these will decompose when exposed to sun, air, and moisture, and are also suited for composting. However, they do not readily decompose in a sealed landfill and are considered a possible contaminant to plastic recycling operations .

Some materials are designed for photodegradation and degrade with the direct sunlight. These are also considered a possible contaminant to plastic recycling operations."

It looks like a repetition to me, but I wanted to put it out there on the talk page in case I'm missing something that differentiates the photodegradable bags from the biodegradable one. Envirocorrector 10:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bad

-"Plastic shopping bags are most often made of polyethylene, (low-density or high-density).

Although not in use today, plastic shopping bags could be made from Polylactic acid (PLA) a biodegradable polymer derived from lactic acid.[1] This is one form of vegetable-based bioplastic. This material biodegrades quickly under composting conditions and does not leave toxic residue. However, bioplastic can have its own environmental impacts, depending on the way it is produced.

Bags made of biodegradable polythene film, which decompose when exposed to sun, air, and moisture, and are also suited for composting have been proposed as an alternative to conventional plastic shopping bags. However, they do not readily decompose in a sealed landfill and represent a possible contaminant to plastic recycling operations."-

Why does is this here as the first paragraph? What environmental impacts, what is it talking about? Are plastic bags meant to be a problem for the environment, and if so how are they a problem? It seems strange to jump right into this, surely someone that feels the need to research plastic bags may not be aware of any environmental impact. It totally lacks flow and pacing. It should start off with a section on what are plastic bags, they are bags to carry or store things in that are made of plastic and are commonly used for XXXX and are found in a wide variety of places such as XXX, XXX, and XXXX.

The plastics revolution saw the creation of the first mass produced plastic bag in ZZZ for the purposes of XXXX, but it wasn't until XXXX that plastic bags really spread into wide usage.

What are plastic bags made out of and why do we use plastic? Thin carrier bags are made out of XXXXX because they are light, easy to compact and cheap to make. Thicker plastics like those made for hospital equiptment are made of XXXX because the plastic is relatively cheap to make and it keeps stuff sterile and resistant to accidental piercing and contamination. Often XXXXX plastic bags are use in XXXXX and made of XXXXX, because they are more durable and a company logo can be printed on them.

Well you get the idea, not in that format, but cover those things rather than leave people hanging on WHAT plastic bags are, what kind of plastic bags are out there, what are they used for and what are they made of.

During the end of the 20th century people became more aware that certain plastics were bad and are almost impossible to recycle at most recycling plants where they only accept plastic for recycling that will hold its shape, as they take XXXXX amount of years to degrade and release XXXX toxins plus causing damage to wild life as well as looking unnapealing as litter.

In year XXXX the first biodegradable plastic bags were mass produced, and only take XXXX months to biodgrade at a garbage dump. Vegetable bases are planned to be used on plastic bags, or plastic that can be recycled easier, or maybe they are being phased out where possible in Europe but America uses them just as often still. Alternatives for plastic bags are paper carrier bags, resealable and steralized hard plastic/steel.

Anyway, this is the sort of structure and information this page needs. This information is dead easy to get on state websites for almost all english speaking countries and we can also get decent information on environmentally conscious countries like China. It looks like it was just randomly put together over time the way it looks now JayKeaton 11:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False claims 100,000 dead mammals etc

There is a common myth that 100,000 mammals are killed each year by bags in the North Atlantic. This is due to an incorrect inter[retation of a study and is completely false so I removed it fromt eh article. see the following link for more info: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3508263.ece

Perhaps someone can find accurate information to replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]