90% of Paper Straws Contain Toxic Forever Chemicals, Study Finds (newatlas.com) 105
A European study reveals that around 90% of eco-friendly paper straws contain "forever chemicals" called PFAS, which do not easily break down and can accumulate in the body, potentially causing health issues. New Atlas reports: "Forever chemicals" is the colloquial name given to a class of more than 12,000 chemicals, more formally known as poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), that barely break down in the environment or in our bodies. Hence, the "forever" part. [...] The researchers tested 39 different brands of straws made from paper, glass, bamboo, stainless steel, and plastic, and analyzed them for 29 different PFAS compounds. The majority of brands tested (69%) contained PFAS, with 18 different PFAS detected in total. Paper straws were most likely to contain PFAS, with the chemicals detected in 90% of the brands tested, albeit in highly variable concentrations. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a compound linked to high cholesterol, a reduced immune response, thyroid disease and increased kidney and testicular cancer, was most frequently detected. PFOA has been banned globally since 2020. Also detected were trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and trifluoromethanesulfonic acid (TFMS), ultra-short-chain PFAS that are highly water-soluble and so might leach out of straws into drinks.
Bamboo straws fared only slightly better than paper ones, with PFAS found in 80% of brands tested. The chemicals were found in 75% of plastic straws and 40% of glass brands. PFAS were not detected in any of the steel straws tested. The PFAS concentrations were low and, the researchers say, pose a small risk to human health. However, the problem with PFAS is that they're bioaccumulative, meaning they can build up over time because they're absorbed but not excreted. The researchers say that while the study did not determine whether PFAS were added to the straws or were the result of contamination -- for example, from the soil in which the plant-based materials are grown -- the presence of the chemicals in almost every brand of paper straw means it's likely that, in some cases, PFAS were used as a water-repellent coating. The study also did not examine whether PFAS leached out of the straws into the liquid they were sitting in. To be safe, the researchers suggest people start using stainless steel straws, or ditch straws altogether. The study was published in the journal Food Additives and Contaminants.
Bamboo straws fared only slightly better than paper ones, with PFAS found in 80% of brands tested. The chemicals were found in 75% of plastic straws and 40% of glass brands. PFAS were not detected in any of the steel straws tested. The PFAS concentrations were low and, the researchers say, pose a small risk to human health. However, the problem with PFAS is that they're bioaccumulative, meaning they can build up over time because they're absorbed but not excreted. The researchers say that while the study did not determine whether PFAS were added to the straws or were the result of contamination -- for example, from the soil in which the plant-based materials are grown -- the presence of the chemicals in almost every brand of paper straw means it's likely that, in some cases, PFAS were used as a water-repellent coating. The study also did not examine whether PFAS leached out of the straws into the liquid they were sitting in. To be safe, the researchers suggest people start using stainless steel straws, or ditch straws altogether. The study was published in the journal Food Additives and Contaminants.
How about not using straws? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How about not using straws? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe the next step after banning plastic straws is to ban PFAS in straws altogether?
Re:How about not using straws? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had read the fine summary you'd know that at least some of these chemicals that were found are already banned and generally they shouldn't be on straws. What is needed is government enforcement of the existing anti pollution and safety regulations. Cue up a load of people telling you how that would be a burden on industry and so on and so forth.
Re: How about not using straws? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Cue up a load of people telling you how that would be a burden on industry and so on and so forth.
I love those people, they are a constant source of amusement. There is a hilarious interview with a chemical industry apologist named Dr. Patrick Moore who claimed glyphosate is completely harmless and that you can drink a quart of the stuff and it won't hurt you. The reporter then offered him a glass of glyphosate, he refused to drink it and literally ran away: https://youtu.be/uh8lxKrFmQs?s... [youtu.be] Watching that PR expert comment afterwards about all the what ways they could have advised him on how to lie and
Re: (Score:2)
If you had read the fine summary you'd know that at least some of these chemicals that were found are already banned and generally they shouldn't be on straws. What is needed is government enforcement of the existing anti pollution and safety regulations. Cue up a load of people telling you how that would be a burden on industry and so on and so forth.
Those contaminated straws must have been made in China, right? Cuz no law-abiding company would EVER use banned chemicals, right? /sarcasm
Seriously, I would like to know WHERE those straws were made and WHERE their manufacturers got their raw materials.
Re: (Score:2)
Those contaminated straws must have been made in China, right? Cuz no law-abiding company would EVER use banned chemicals, right? /sarcasm
Or it could be that the feedstocks - the wood for the paper in the straws, was already contaminated. That's been cropping up on occasion for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Good, that's part of the puzzle. PFAS may already be in the feedstock used to manufacture these straws.
Re: (Score:1)
Paper straws are likely made of recycled paper and not virgin wood pulp. It doesn't matter what's added at the factory, forever chemicals survive recycling.
Banning plastic straws is fine, but can we please ban paper straws too? I hate the taste of paper and the only way around that is a bad coating.
Re:How about not using straws? (Score:5, Insightful)
can we please ban paper straws too?
How about we ban the silly bans? Straws, whether paper or plastic, are an infinitesimal problem. They don't matter. Your car emitted more pollution on the drive to McDonalds than a lifetime of straws.
I hate the taste of paper and the only way around that is a bad coating.
Another "way around that" is to just not use a straw.
Re: (Score:3)
The car's emissions don't end up as trash in the ocean.
It's a different problem that has a different solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Most ocean trash is from the fishing industry.
Wasn't most of the great ocean rubbish patch fishing materials?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, unpoliced so no business does the honourable thing
https://education.nationalgeog... [nationalgeographic.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the PFAS are persistent through recycling, then how did 10% of the straws (differentiated by brand) manage to not have any PFAS in them? Are some companies using cleaner feed stock?
Re: (Score:2)
Utopia: Everything not forbidden is compulsory.
Re:How about not using straws? (Score:4, Insightful)
some people are not willing to make even the smallest of sacrifices for the common good
It has become a religion. Asking people to make these stupid sacrifices is just a test of allegiance. Banning straws doesn't do any good. Please look at the amount of single-use plastic that you throw away every day. Plastic straws don't even make the list. In the west, we don't habitually throw our trash in the river to dispose of it. We produce massive amounts of microplastics in many other ways, but again, plastic straws don't even make that list. Banning them is just for show. I'm not going to pretend-save the environment by kowtowing to stupid regulation.
The mechanism at work is that the people who could actually do something, but don't want to because it would diminish their profits, deflect blame by keeping the masses busy doing useless small acts of lip service.
Re:How about not using straws? (Score:5, Interesting)
Please look at the amount of single-use plastic that you throw away every day.
I do. I also looked at the amount of plastic straws that are thrown away by cafes and snack-bars (because I know the owners of such) and found it distasteful, so I stopped using the damned things. Same thing with plastic bags. If whataboutism is not letting us do the smallest of steps in the right direction (freely, as I noted above!), then how do you expect that one day we will be able to make a bigger step that will have an actual impact?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's weird to stay focused on straws when most of the cups are plastic now too. I do like what Starbucks did with their cold drink lid/spout. But their lid contains enough extra plastic for rigidity that you could just make a straw with it. Of course rigid plastic is a lot safer than flexible plastic. The flexible stuff requires chemical additives similar to BPA. We usually only ban one chemical at a time, but there are thousands of analogs to things like PFOA and BPA and it takes seconds to co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
how do you expect that one day we will be able to make a bigger step
My hope is that one day environmentalists will get an actual clue and do this properly, because right now they're a cult, and just because they have cult followers doesn't make them right. Banning plastic straws was a terrible idea for the environment, because the ban caused very vocal opposition in return literally no benefit at all. The people who do not oppose that bullshit now have something to point to when someone asks them if they're saving the environment. It gives them absolution, but like religiou
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps no measurable benefit, but it constantly reminds people of their impact on the environment, so it can indirectly lead to change. Kind of like the way belonging to a political party constantly reminds you of what you're supposed to believe and how to vote.
Re: (Score:1)
Why do you need to be a registered Republican in order to vote the way you do? That doesn't make sense unless you understand how self identity shapes your actions and beliefs.
Re: How about not using straws? (Score:2)
Some states have closed primaries and require party registration to vote in the primary.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, the two major parties, especially the GOP, understands the importance of self identity in reminding people what they are supposed to believe and how to vote. To that end, closing the primaries creates an incentive for members to remain members of the party.
Re: How about not using straws? (Score:2)
No. Not especially the GOP. It's most especially the Democrats. States like CA and NY. The vast majority of people who are locked into a closed primary are living under Democrat rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever fed you that one lied to you. Because in California, No Party Preference voters can vote in the Democratic primary but not the Republican primary. [ocvote.gov]
Re: How about not using straws? (Score:2)
They also can't vote in Libertarian primaries. Or Green primaries. Because California - a state led by Democrats - has established closed primaries.
Re: How about not using straws? (Score:1)
Just guessing here, but I'd bet you're a true believer in the strong version of the Sapir-Worf hypothesis, too.
The concept of a causal arrow from belief to identity seems foreign to you, so I wouldn't be surprised if the idea of belief preceding language were equally mind-blowing.
Re: (Score:1)
Your avoidance of my question about why you must be a Republican in order to vote the way you do, proves that you, just like the GOP [latimes.com] and George Orwell, also believe that if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. [wikiquote.org]
So yes, I agree with them, and once again you are trolling. I've noticed that you do that a lot.
Re: How about not using straws? (Score:3)
I live in Massachusetts, a state dominated by the Democratic party for the last two generations.
I do not believe that one-party governance is ever a good thing, so I choose to align myself with the opposition party. The only price I pay for this choice is getting snail mail spam from the right, as opposed to the snail mail spam I would be getting from the left if I joined the majority of Bay Staters and checked off "unenrolled" on my voter forms.
When I lived in a more 50/50 place earlier in my life, my beli
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps no measurable benefit, but it constantly reminds people of their impact on the environment, so it can indirectly lead to change. Kind of like the way belonging to a political party constantly reminds you of what you're supposed to believe and how to vote.
Banning straws led many to the realization that plastic in that specific use-case has basically no good substitute materials as the many alternatives tried all have drawbacks whereas plastic fits the use case to a tee.
That's why banning straws was a dumb decision: there is no material that fits the use-case so well and the environmental impact does not justify the detriment the measure brings.
Ultimately most people will not get on-board with environmental concerns if that comes at their detriment, so any in
Re: (Score:3)
the ban caused very vocal opposition in return literally no benefit at all
I think this is a very valid comment. It's like what Bruce Schneier has called "security theater". Actions that are designed to look like they make things more secure, which don't actually do so but make people feel that something is being done. If we look at the classic example of this, which is airport screening, what we can see is that things are made deliberately longer and slower and more painful so that people complain about the time through security and get told that it's a trade off. At the same tim
Re: (Score:3)
I also looked at the amount of plastic straws that are thrown away by cafes and snack-bars (because I know the owners of such) and found it distasteful, so I stopped using the damned things. Same thing with plastic bags. If whataboutism is not letting us do the smallest of steps in the right direction (freely, as I noted above!), then how do you expect that one day we will be able to make a bigger step that will have an actual impact?
Because not all of us enjoy the freedom you have in this context. I laud your conviction and value your commitment to it.
Freedom is *your* ability to say "I *can* use a plastic bag or plastic straw, but I will choose not to due to my convictions about saving the environment". In my state, however, plastic bags are banned. I cannot make the same choice you have, I must either use paper bags (which some stores don't offer), reusable bags (which I have to remember to bring AND match my shopping with the bags I
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I thought the best compromise was 1.) having thicker plastic bags, which both incentivizes reuse and reduces the number of bags needed, and 2.) putting a $0.25 fee on them with paper costing $0.10. This both incentivizes reduction in use and enables choice...but of course, we can't have such things.
Parts of California make them thicker and charge 10 cents for plastic bags. What I see is that most people either don't take any bags (and just dump it in their trunk) or buy bags every time. I rarely see anyone bringing in bags of any kind, reusable or otherwise. Now maybe some of the folks who took bags when they were free are doing without now — I have no way to measure that — but overall, it doesn't look like people's behavior changed much at all, but now it is a profit stream for the sto
Re: How about not using straws? (Score:2)
A pretty big fraction of people in my area are bringing their own bags, maybe a quarter of people. It's 25 cents a bag if you don't, and painful if you have several bags of groceries. My town also bans plastic straws and charges for disposable cups. Most people are paying the cup fees, I would estimate less than 1 in 10 bring a cup. Ever try to drink a milkshake with a paper straw, doesn't work.
Carbon sequestration (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why should we suffer in the slightest to make you feel slightly better about a problem caused on the other side of the world?
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of comments here appear to claim that environmentalism is a cult. But, after reading the responses, I'm starting to think that it's the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
They do point out that plastic straws also contain these PFAS as well.
I think the point is the liquid is in full contact with the inside of the straws, and therefore sweeps anything lose straight into your mouth.
Re: How about not using straws? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Basically, corporations are shitting where we have to eat on a massive scale. We need to treat the matter with the scale & urgency it deserves.
Re: (Score:2)
Straws are silly for dining in, especially if the drink isn't water. They have a tendency to guide the drink past the tongue where drinking directly from a glass surrounds it.
The number of drinks that need to be relatively sealed for transportation is the issue here. Starbucks does well with their lids with the built-in drinking spout but that won't work as well for carbonated, thinner drinks. But these are containers made of most of the same plastics as straws. At the time there was more hysteria over
Re: (Score:2)
The straw has *one* benefit - when drinking acidic drinks (e.g. Coke), you get the drink past your teeth.
Also, for certain drinks (anything with crushed ice, such as Mojitos) it's more or less mandatory - but for those, I'd definitely prefer the steel straw.
Re: (Score:2)
Your whole mouth is full of solvent saliva. I don't think it matters where the drink goes. Besides, most of the pH change in your mouth is from bacteria breaking down sugars, which are also highly soluble.
The one major study quoted most often puts teeth directly in a container of soda. Presumably teeth without a live microbiome, without saliva, and where the soda is not washed away.
If I had to guess, the pH of your mouth is lower with sugar soda than diet. Ooh, recent study:
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-17 [mdpi.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Some people might have difficulty drinking without a straw, especially if they are in bed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A cocktail without a straw is anathema.
But there are alternatives. Our bars here have now reusable straws made of metal. You need to get used to them so you don't chip your teeth, but once you do, they are pretty awesome. They put them in the fridge so they are chilled, adding to the cocktail experience quite a bit, especially for drinks that come in frosted cups like a Moscow Mule.
Re: How about not using straws? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet your chosen drink contains:
* milk, presumably from some dairy farm, which we are constantly told is so bad for the environment, global warming due to methane emission, and unethical to animals,
* coffee, grown in some exotic locale because of the plant's specialized climate needs, and transported long distance with further carbon emissions to where you are,
* cinnamon and/or cocoa with similar logistics to coffee,
* probably sugar, which the reader can expand upon as an exercise,
* machinery with energy inputs to manufacture, then each time to freeze, boil and express coffee...
And yet no one is proposing to forgo the luxury of that drink or take the lifestyle hit and to just drink tap or rain water instead.
The problem with radicalism is of course that you can always find someone that is more radical and ideologically 'pure' than you, that will show up your version as conscience assuaging virtue signaling.
Re: How about not using straws? (Score:2)
When I brought up this concept with others, the regular refrain I would hear is that some people with bad teeth have difficulty with cold drinks and straws allow them to better manage the flow. So getting rid of straws was not seen as a viable approach to this segment.
"Why don't you all stop too?" (Score:4, Informative)
Your preferences and needs are not the same as everyone else's. Stop trying to force me to do anything. Show me what is good, and why. Then f- off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'll just have to back to my driving my Tesla then.
Re: (Score:2)
Or we spend our energy on something useful (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are spending any energy or time on this stupid insignificant plight of the straw! OMG ponies!!! The amount of media attention and completely insignificant results from doing anything with straws is such a waste. How about we instead:
Promote and forward nuclear, every state should be building 2-10 nuclear plants immediately.
All new construction should be required to have a heat pump water heater, 20 SEER HVAC, and 5-20KW of solar.
Ban all single use, non biodegradable, non renewable generated, and non domestically produced plastic and all styrofoam from anywhere that sells it for immediate consumption. Or tax the hell out of it, all proceeds go to environmental cleanup. Note this still allows a path for plastic in the market, if it is biodegradable and uses oil from a renewable source, and is domestically manufactured. (This ensures our laws control its production and environmental costs are not outsourced)
Re: Or we spend our energy on something useful (Score:1)
No need to tax it, just promote it as fuel. We have regulated away all possible options except for dumping our waste in the ground or in the oceans, because burning waste as oil, done properly in the western world, is efficient but has some very minor trace amounts of âoebadâ chemicals and off course it emits carbon. So we drill more oil to burn and more oil to make plastics instead of recycling it and then we ship it to a third world where most of it gets burned in open fires if not outright dump
Re: (Score:3)
Normally I call out the silly idea of using nuclear to solve the climate crisis due to times involved, but I honestly don't know what to do with your post. It's like you lump everything you've ever heard into one heading called "environmental" and think that any one solution to one problem applies to everything under that heading.
Hint: The topic of discussion is plastic waste and PFAS contamination. Please get off your irrelevant off topic soapbox and join the discussion.
Re: Or we spend our energy on something useful (Score:2)
A: there's a car coming; you should get out of the road
B: there are other ways to be safe; I'll put on an orange jacket
A: the car's still coming; you should maybe just get out of the road
B: hang on, I've got some flares here I can light up
A: the car is still coming and it looks like there are a bunch more behind it
B: well hang on, I've got a siren here I can turn on to let them know I'm here
A: oh, my bad, the car is actually a semi and it looks like it's being driven by a man who passed out or died
B: well I
Re: (Score:2)
Normally I call out the silly idea of using nuclear to solve the climate crisis due to times involved,
I'm sure people in the 2050's will be saying the same thing, when if we started now it's still better than starting in a few decades.
I remember people being shouted down about proposing nuclear as a green option in the 90's.. if only we'd started then.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ban all single use, non biodegradable, non renewable generated, and non domestically produced plastic and all styrofoam from anywhere that sells it for immediate consumption."
You might want to look in your kitchen before you do that, especially the freezer. Oh, those wax-coated boxes are actually plastic coated boxes.
As for heat pump water heater, I'm not entirely sold on the idea as in the winter I would be using the house's heat pump to warm up the house as usual, but then the water heater would be cooli
How about plastic bottles? (Score:5, Insightful)
You would think they are even more dangerous because they are harder to avoid than straws.
Re: How about plastic bottles? (Score:2)
Then what could we throw up in the air at concerts and whatever palloosa event that won't harm anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Then what could we throw up in the air at concerts and whatever
>palloosa event that won't harm anyone?
Adopt the NFL's "Raiders' Rule" from when they had the bottle throwing problem: All bottles must be thrown in the same quarter as purchased. :)
hawk
Re: (Score:3)
Your whataboutism is silly. Plastic bottles aren't getting a free pass from the PFAS critique. If you want to talk about them, post a story on slashdot about them.
Additionally the point against plastic straws is not that we can't avoid them, but it's a question of what we do with them afterwards. Nearly 100% of plastic straws end up in general waste. For bottles this figure is much lower, even in countries like the USA where recycling is widely viewed as incompetent.
This study is not about straws. (Score:2)
Why are they looking for PFAs in straws? Plastic or paper straws makes no difference. Looking for PFAs in straws is like looking for lead in napkins.
This has nothing to do with damning straws. Plastic and paper straws have zero use for PFAs in their construction. That makes no sense. What is this research really about?
Re: This study is not about straws. (Score:3)
Ok, I guess they should have read the article a bit further.
Apparently the researchers refrain from the logical conclusion, which is to ban the use of PFAs in straws (gee, that seems pretty simple). Instead, they jump to banning the use of straws. I guess throwing the baby out with the bath water is just normal nowadays, and knee jerk reactionaries are everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
PFAs are already banned in California (where many paper straws are used) and in many other states.
https://www.saferstates.org/ne... [saferstates.org]
Re: (Score:3)
At a guess it happened because someone was testing paper straws in general for their contents and noticed PFAS. Then the study was set up to see if it was an anomaly.
Re: (Score:3)
Plastic or paper straws makes no difference
Actually objectively the material the straws were made of made a huge difference. That was the entire conclusion of the study.
Looking for PFAs in straws is like looking for lead in napkins.
We don't look for lead in napkins because lead isn't used in the process of making napkins. If it were not only would someone be studying it, we'd likely be banning it.
How about focusing on the bigger issue (Score:1)
One Starbucks iced drink has more plastic in the cup than probably 50 straws. This would be like being obsessed with motor oil while giving gasoline and diesel a free pass.
But we all know why progressives won't go for the real issue, and that's because they'd have to make genuine sacrifices if we wholesale banned plastic cups and bottles. They'd have to drink ice cold drinks in paper cups which would hurt their hands and be inconvenient.
Re: (Score:2)
We used to have paper drink cups and plastic straws. Now we've gone the opposite direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. At no point in the past did you have paper drink cups.
What you had was a composite cups that consisted of a paper shell for structural integrity, and plastic lining within the cup for water tightness. The main problem is the seams, which need to be glued together with something that is both safe to digest as it gets dissolved in the drink over time, but also strong enough to actually handle a variety of liquids humans ingest, ranging from extremely acidic sodas to solvents like alcohol.
Glue that
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that some paper cups have a lining of plastic, but many are coated with wax instead. https://www.wholesalecoffeecom... [wholesalec...pany.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
"Wax" as used in this context is simply a type of a plastic composite.
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to have to produce a source on that one. No, wax is not a kind of plastic, even in this context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Let's take your source's definition at face value:
>typically with melting points above about 40 C
And in plastic cups with wax lining, the problem with recycling them is same as plastic cups. Melting point is so high, paper has long since ignited and burned off.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignition temperature of paper is about 230 C https://hypertextbook.com/fact... [hypertextbook.com].
So at 40 C, the was could start to melt away, long before the paper starts to be damaged.
Re: (Score:2)
If we want to focus on big pictures why don't we just turn off power to every house in America? Imagine the environmental benefit!
Now back in reality the areas we address are moderated based on the benefit and substitutability available for them to minimise the effect on society. There's no good reason for plastic straws to exist. You do not need a straw to drink a beverage unless you have a severe debilitating facial deformation. It's a plastic source that can objectively be eliminated.
Also nearly all plas
Dangerous junk (Score:1)
Why not just use spaghetti straws? Pasta straws! (Score:4, Interesting)
I once ate long hollow spaghetti tubes, like straws, they could be used as drinking straws too. I suppose there's always the danger of bits coming off (hard bits), but it shouldn't be too bad.
So that's gotta be my free super-business idea to someone out there who wants to pick that up, you'd probably end up a millionaire selling those pasta-straws to replace paper and plastic straws. It'll work, and they're edible too. No toxins, pure food.
Re: (Score:2)
dude
https://www.webstaurantstore.c... [webstaurantstore.com]
They are very much out there...
Re: (Score:2)
That's fantastic!
600 pack for 33 bucks ain't bad either, there's zero excuse for them not to use those.
Re: (Score:2)
Fascinating idea. But you gotta love the Prop 65 warning at the bottom. Geez, those things pop up on everything, don't they?
Metal straws is the future (Score:4, Interesting)
Bars around here switched to reusable metal straws. I own part of a bar (well, in all honesty, it was at the end cheaper to buy part of it than to spend half my wage there anyway...) and while metal straws are a bit of an investment upfront, they save a TON of money in the long run. They are reusable, you put them in the dishwasher with the glasses that you have to clean anyway, and the straws don't exactly take up any relevant space, you can greenwash your drinks because, hey, reusable straws!, you can keep them in the freezer for an additional user experience (frankly, have you ever had a drink from a frosted straw? It's awesome, especially in summer with a frozen drink!) and in the long run, they save you a ton of money!
Re: (Score:2)
There is an invention for cleaning pipes... "pipe cleaner"... but it seems you have never once actually cleaned it.
Signaling virtue gathers mold.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you still gotta draw a pipe cleaner through it. Boo-hoo, I hope the waiter isn't going to get overtaxed by it.
Quite frankly, if that is the problem, get a new waiter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not exactly my job, I'm just part owner of it, I don't run it.
Re: Metal straws is the future (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Next headline: "Metal Straws Found to Spread Hepatitis."
so what? (Score:2)
100% of everything is either bad for you, bad for the environment, or contains something that is bad for you or bad for the environment. In fact YOU are bad for the environment.
Everything must be banned, immediately, including everybody who disagrees with banning everything.
Who knew (Score:2)
You can find anything in anything (Score:1)
Analytical methods have gotten so good that you can find your contaminant of your choice in anything.
From the paper, the maximum amount detected was 7 ng/g, with most samples around 1 ng/g.
How much lead, mercury, cadmium, radioactive potassium, and arsenic do these straws contain?
One guy and a cup (Score:2)
90% of Paper Straws Contain Toxic Forever Chemicals
That "sucks". ;)
When I infrequently go for fast-food, I at least hand the straw back to the drive-through attendant; I'm a grown man, I can drink from a cup. And did we have forever chemicals in our paper cups of yore?
Just like "In California everythihg causes cancer" (Score:2)
Yet another scare headline based on "we detected X bad thing(s)" in Y - with no attention given to how MUCH was detected.
Chemical tests these days are VERY sensitive and many can detect chemicals at concentrations where you could count the molecules in the sample without using your toes. avogadro's number is 6.022*10^23. so there's a LOT of molecules in only a few grams of a compound. Dump a capful of some new long-lived chemical into an ocean, wait until it mixes around a bit, and they'll find it in ever
Solution - Already? (Score:2)
Don't forget, it's not 100%. So draw the short straw. One in ten is safe.
When's that magic lasso coming around? (Score:2)
I still think the straw in the turtle's nose was a fake.
Re: (Score:2)