Why do peole use styrofoam so much? For disposable plates and bowls, to serve as a protector for items such as computers, for food containers from a resturaunt, packaging material? I don't see any reason to use styrofoam in any of these (exept maybe to protect a computer), and styrofoam is one of the many things that add up to pollution. It has chemicals in it that enlarge the ozone hole. it can seriously harm any animal that swallows it. It takes forever to decompose, so basically it just sits in a landfill for godonlyknows how long. In addition to that, I hate the high-pitched sound it makes when you handle it. It is very annoying. I'm glad people are starting to use potato-starch packaging material. It's now time to start finding some alternate material that is sturdy enough to hold a shipped computer in place. I think styrofoam should be banned!!!
don't know about the material for computers.. but you can find quite some stuff (like cutlery, bags, pens) from corn-starch based material. I have a "green pen" from corn starch which is a nice non toxic alternative to chew on and it writes really well!
Here you go:
http://www.yokozuna.com/
I definitely agree that these alternatives should be used far more often.
There is an alternative for the material for computers: Formed cardboard.
So there is no need to use styrofoam.
I hate styrofoam too, it should be banned.
Hasn't it been fairly well established that hot liquids or hot food in styrofoam containers has been linked to breast cancer?
Styrofoam which is not completely "cured" can be highly toxic.
No styrofoam containers in my house, ever!
Styrofoam rubbing against other styrofoam makes a highly annoying sound to me. If I'm holding one or both pieces of styrofoam at the time, the sensation is also horrid. I can't stand it... it's every bit as bad as flourescent flicker.
:shudder: Styrofoam, eeek!!!!
Styrofoam is one of the many things that add up to pollution. It has chemicals in it that enlarge the ozone hole.
I was under the impression that all ozone-depleting substances were phased out (or are due to be) under the Montreal Protocol of 1988.
Styrofoam really pongs when it's burnt.
Styrofoam really pongs when it's burnt.
So does hair!
Styrofoam is one of the many things that add up to pollution. It has chemicals in it that enlarge the ozone hole.
I was under the impression that all ozone-depleting substances were phased out (or are due to be) under the Montreal Protocol of 1988.
Correction - the Montreal Protocol was drawn up in 1987, according the "Ozone depletion web area" of the US Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/index.html
However, 1988 was the year when ozone-depleting styrofoam began to be phased out.
Food Packaging Industry
In 1988, the makers of disposable foam cartons and food packaging announced a nation-wide phaseout of CFC use in food service packaging foams. At that time, about one-third of foam products for food service were manufactured with CFCs. This initiative, which relied on the adoption of alternative foam blowing agents, marked the first time an industry voluntarily halted use of CFCs. Cooperation between government, business, and environmental groups made this initiative successful.
Benefits of the CFC phaseout http://www.epa.gov/ozone/geninfo/benefits.html
Styrofoam is one of the many things that add up to pollution. It has chemicals in it that enlarge the ozone hole.
I was under the impression that all ozone-depleting substances were phased out (or are due to be) under the Montreal Protocol of 1988.
Correction - the Montreal Protocol was drawn up in 1987, according the "Ozone depletion web area" of the US Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/index.html
However, 1988 was the year when ozone-depleting styrofoam began to be phased out.
Food Packaging Industry
In 1988, the makers of disposable foam cartons and food packaging announced a nation-wide phaseout of CFC use in food service packaging foams. At that time, about one-third of foam products for food service were manufactured with CFCs. This initiative, which relied on the adoption of alternative foam blowing agents, marked the first time an industry voluntarily halted use of CFCs. Cooperation between government, business, and environmental groups made this initiative successful.
Benefits of the CFC phaseout http://www.epa.gov/ozone/geninfo/benefits.html
I did some research on styrofoam recently, so yeah, you are right about this. apparently, styrofoam is much cheaper than the more environmentally friendly alternatives. unfortunately, cheapest isn't always the best.
Styrofoam has many many things against it, most of which have already been said here so I will not repeat them.
However, I will say that I HATE HATE HATE the sound styrofoam makes. I scream whenever I hear it. Of all the sensory stimulations I dislike, styrofoam is the one I respond most violently to. It is physically painful to me.
Styrofoam needs to be banned - like some of you have said, it's highly annoying.
the Montreal Protocol was drawn up in 1987, according the "Ozone depletion web area" of the US Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/index.html
Benefits of the CFC phaseout
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/geninfo/benefits.html
And the phaseout goes on, according to last Sunday's Independent:
Bush pushes for plan to protect ozone layer
By Geoffrey Lean
Environment Editor
George Bush is this week to press for international action that will do more to combat global warming then the Kyoto Protocol.
His administration is putting forward more radical proposals than any other government to phase out emissions of gases that help cause climate change, at talks in Montreal.
The move does not change the President's opposition to strict international curbs on carbon dioxide emissions - even though his chief scientist, Professor John Marburger, last week said that unless they were reduced the Earth would become "unlivable".
The new US proposals are directed against chemicals brought in to replace the CFCs (or chlorofluorocarbons) that destroy the world's vital ozone layer, which are being phased out.
These new chemicals - HCFCs (or hydrochlorofluorocarbons), used in refrigeration - are much less damaging to the ozone than those they replace, but warm the planet up to 1,700 times more quickly than carbon dioxide.
Their use is to stop in 2030 in rich nations and 2040 in poor ones, but the US wants both deadlines brought forward by a decade.