In Chris Ford's editorial in the September OO9 News he asks whether we should be more worried about the plastic waste we create, including tiny bits from sanding plastic.
Isn't it reasonably acceptable, as long as it goes in the bin and not down the drain?
I think it was more aimed at the large use the model railway industry makes of plastics. Virtually everything we use is plastic, from the locos and stock, the track, and the buildings and that's before we get around to the use of expanded poly in the scenery (though the latter can often be seen as a positive as we often recycle old packaging)... We could make a lot more use of card, for instance, in buildings, historically building kits have been mainly from plastic but laser cut card is now becoming the norm, even for the larger manufacturers...
Possibly there are a couple of issues here - the total volume of waste plastic and the fact that filings/sanding dust are finely divided and form if not so-called nanoparticles, at least rather small ones in the environment.
I understand that with clothing there is the idea of "cost per wear" when it comes to "wardrobe budget" both from the point of view of justifying spending a lot on a garment that will see a lot of use or the wanton spending on cheap clothes that will be worn once or twice and thrown away.
A similar idea could be applied to modelling. If a model is going to give many hours of pleasure building it and then give years of service, perhaps even to more than one owner then the environmental cost is likely to be insignificant compared to say a bag of crisps.
If the small particles are of concern, then give a thought to things like clothes made out of man-made fibres, shedding constantly with wear and particularly when washing and drying.
Another aspect is the packaging. Some materials are picked individually from a stand and others come wrapped in plastic bags that are thrown away (and generally not recyclable) without a thought.
Modellers are possibly rather good at what has become rather trendy - "upcycling".
One of the issues Chris raises is the large amount of waste in plastic kits due to the size of the sprues compared to the size of the actual parts. This of course tends to get worse with smaller scales.
Could kits be designed with less sprue volume? Or with slight modifications could they be designed to be easier to de-sprue so this could happen in the factory allowing the sprue plastic to be recycled?
Frank
I didn't realise he'd in the latest issue which I only got today. In respect of shavings/filings if he's that worried about it "going down the drain" then the obvious answer is to collect the stuff in a bag (plastic!) and when full (in several decades time!!) dump it in the bin. TBH I felt that he's making a mountain out of a molehill.
Even with the sprue, which could well be the greatest volume of plastic in a kit, I imagine the total volume disposed of is rather small compared to the plastic food packaging thrown out by the purchaser of the kit.
I understand that polystyrene is recyclable (whether or not councils actually recycle it) and I imagine sprue is rather easy to recycle - not contaminated by food, not co-extruded with other things and so on. If deemed appropriate, recycling labels could be moulded into sprues. Indeed, the modelling community is hopefully a responsible enough one to arrange collection points at exhibitions or similar locations and make sure the material goes to the right place if that was what was needed. Again whether or not it would make any difference at all compared to say individuals collecting plastic blown or thrown into their front yard or step I have my doubts.
I have it on good (domestic) authority that there is a lot of snarky evangelism regarding going plastic free in online communities. One aspect is people getting rid of all their plastic storage containers and replacing them with non-plastic ones. Also getting rid of their children's plastic toys. This is just obscene and just another case of rampant consumerism. What do they think happens to the products they got rid of? Even if 100% recycled they have just passed it on to someone else.
I'm sure a number of us have "repurposed" or "upcycled" containers for keeping modelling bits in and they have seen use years or even decades beyond their anticipated lifetime. Even making models out what would otherwise be thrown away. And who knows, when it is time for them to go someone may have worked out a sensible way of dealing with them.
I think we can forgive the Hon. Editor picking up on one of today's topical issues, and while it's good if it makes us think twice about any kind of plastic I don't think that we, the modelling community, need lose too much sleep over our meagre contribution to the problem.
As Graeme says, we're actually rather good at re-using and up-cycling.
And don't forget 009 Sales...!
David.
Even sprue can be recycled. Didn't we used to pop it into old jam jars and dissolve it in some horrible liquid, the name of which I forget, to make filler and so forth? Personally I've never got on with plastic sheet modelling, so I stick to card and wood as my material of choice. Cereal packets are so easy to get hold of, though sometimes the waiting can get a bit much.
Sadly, I am not very environmentally responsible!
I drive a supercharged V8 and also ride on steam trains just for fun.
A few bits of plastic going to land fill will make very little impact.
However, I do save the plastic off cuts and even the sprues for future use, so I guess I am doing my bit for the enviroment after all!
Brian Meldon
Oh dear - steam trains! All that coal and CO2, plus the pollution (and sheer dirt).
I'm sure there are environmental purists out there who already have them in their sights...
David.
Re: Steam trains? - they already do, with the connivance of the government.
Some hare-brained scheme to do away with domestic coal use in the not too distant future, which immediately makes the coal business generally unviable, so no-one will be producing large lump coal wot steam engines need. Never mind the multi-million pound heritage railway industry doing its bit for tourism and the UK's balance of payments.
As usual, the environmental fanatics, although well-meaning, haven't thought it through properly.
Apart from anything else, how will I heat my house and water? We rely on an open fire and back boiler, as there's no gas within miles and as a pensioner, I certainly can't afford oil or electric heating and would have to strip the house out in order to install a boiler or whatever. If governments want to indulge in these fanciful ideas, it might be useful if they were prepared to pay for them.
My 2-pennies worth of thought:
1. The key problem with all mineral-oil based plastic materials is that they don't compost, and while they degrade with age they do not vanish into the environment. Thus, with every item of plastic the amount around us increases.
2. Where it degrades and looses mechanical strength it sheds micro-particles, which end up in the food-chain, i.e. ultimately we end up eating those invisibly small particles. Given the chemical stability this shouldn't be a toxicity issue, but who knows if and as these amounts steadily increase.
3. In some application plastic is indispensable. Not just as insulation on wires, but for example a cucumber lasts 2 to 3 days, a cucumber in a plastic sleeve 7 to 9 days...
4. Small plastic pieces are a nightmare to clean up; I'm forever collecting plastic bits from the cutting string of the edge strimmer (but don't want to use wire as that easily injures wildlife and humans).
5. So I agree that Chris is over the top as the bulk of the micro plastic does not come from our workbenches.
6. But I also agree that Chris has a point as the fine sanding dust is more of an issue than the sprue waste. Even the idea with a plastic bag is not much help as the bag is probably more waste than the contents. Probably the most environmentally friendly way of disposing filings is to burn them, dissolving in solvent is not particularly friendly to the environment, and the waste-collection is not dustproof enough to make sue they don't end up in nature.
7. Whether or not cardboard and wood buildings are more environmentally friendly I can't assess, but I have doubts. They don't last as long as plastic models, but with paint and glue on them they are not that environmentally friendly either.
In London the administration in charge is totally incompetent and can't manage transport, so they charge you a congestion-charge for their incompetence. Here in Bristol they blocked certain directions across junctions, purportedly to reduce air pollution in the area. So now vehicles have to detour to the next roundabout and back, going twice across the junction instead of just once. That'll reduce pollution! Considering such wilful and intentional environmental pollution should we get hung up about a bit of dust?
Ceterum censeo
Quote from: Leprechaun on September 13, 2019, 23:19
In London the administration in charge is totally incompetent and can't manage transport, so they charge you a congestion-charge for their incompetence.
Although I agree with the rest I don't with that. The fact is that our old towns and cities (ones like central London that have not been rebuilt in the 60s) were not built for modern transport. So the powers that be have had to put in some way of reducing the number of polluting vehicles that try to get in. Perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is
our personal desire to travel everywhere in our own (usually rather larger than really necessary) personal mode of transport that is not only very polluting but also not suitable for an urban road system which was based on horses and pedestrians and then try to blame someone else...