Sustainable Sailing

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by atlantical

I live in Scotland used to do a lot of hill walking, I would just fill my water bottle from the rivers and streams. It was pure water not full of flouride and chlorine….

On my wilderness canoe trips into northern Ontario we routinely drank raw water from the rivers, streams and springs. Same thing when I sailed Lake Superior. Would often drink the water straight out of the Big Lake once we were away from the few urban/industrial areas.

On one Lake Superior trip I miscalculated on the amount of water I had put into my tank. No biggie. Just pumped a few gallons straight from the Lake.

It’s one of the reasons I miss cruising Superior.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by atlantical

I live in Scotland used to do a lot of hill walking, I would just fill my water bottle from the rivers and streams. It was pure water not full of flouride and chlorine. The Japanese even come here with tankers and buy the water. They take it to Japan and make whisky with it....

Obviously, it would be cheaper to make pure water in Japan than to ship it that far. Removing chlorine and floride is child's play. Ergo, the water is not pure, but rather contains a blend of minerals they find pleasing to the taste.


BTW, the chlorine is eliminated within minutes of adding anything organic to the water, like rye, for example.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by GordMay

That would be run series.

Yep, your correct

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Obviously, it would be cheaper to make pure water in Japan than to ship it that far. Removing chlorine and floride is child's play. Ergo, the water is not pure, but rather contains a blend of minerals they find pleasing to the taste.


BTW, the chlorine is eliminated within minutes of adding anything organic to the water, like rye, for example.

Yes, but he hit the nail on the head with the marketing comment.
Ever seen the water commercial, never touched by man?
Fiji water isn’t it?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...ng-claims.html
https://youtu.be/MeF134YMoS0

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Yes, but he hit the nail on the head with the marketing comment.
Ever seen the water commercial, never touched by man?
Fiji water isn’t it?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...ng-claims.html
https://youtu.be/MeF134YMoS0

Here’s another one:

https://www.iceberg.ca/home

Iceberg Vodka is handcrafted in small batches from real Canadian Icebergs – the purest source of water on the planet

Marketing always trumps facts or rationality.

[Matt Johnson]

All this time I felt smug because I use a backpack to carry my groceries....

Here's an interesting article about plastic bag use from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47161379

"Even the dreaded single-use shopping bag might not be the villain it seems.

If you've bought sturdy, reusable bags from your supermarket, it's likely they're made from non-woven polypropylene - and they are less damaging, but only if you use them at least 52 times.

And if your reusable bag is organic cotton, don't feel smug - the researchers reckon they need 20,000 uses to justify themselves. That's a shopping trip every day for over half a century."

The quoted study: https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publicatio...93614-73-4.pdf

Who knew making good environmental decisions were so complicated?

Matt

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Marketing always trumps facts or rationality.

In fact marketing specifically targets and exploits peoples' unique rationalizations/interpretations of facts. If you go to a university and visit the psychology or philosophy departments, you'll find people in frumpy old clothes scratching their head trying to understand human nature and how people rationalize. If you then visit the business and marketing departments, you'll find people in manicured clothes talking about their recent vacations. So whose facts/rationalization scheme seems to convey more utility?

Originally Posted by funjohnson

...Who knew making good environmental decisions were so complicated?

If websitecarbon.com is to be believed, this thread has produced about 7kg of CO2 so far. Hopefully someone who used to use single-use plastic bottles has decided to eliminate or reduce their use of such bottles...

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Singularity

In fact marketing specifically targets and exploits peoples' unique rationalizations/interpretations of facts. If you go to a university and visit the psychology or philosophy departments, you'll find people in frumpy old clothes scratching their head trying to understand human nature and how people rationalize. If you then visit the business and marketing departments, you'll find people in manicured clothes talking about their recent vacations. So whose facts/rationalization scheme seems to convey more utility?

I guess that depends on what you find utilitarian .

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by funjohnson

...Here's an interesting article about plastic bag use from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47161379

"Even the dreaded single-use shopping bag might not be the villain it seems.

If you've bought sturdy, reusable bags from your supermarket, it's likely they're made from non-woven polypropylene - and they are less damaging, but only if you use them at least 52 times.

And if your reusable bag is organic cotton, don't feel smug - the researchers reckon they need 20,000 uses to justify themselves. That's a shopping trip every day for over half a century."

The quoted study: https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publicatio...93614-73-4.pdf

Who knew making good environmental decisions were so complicated?

Matt

This is GOOD!. And I have to believe the Danes lean a little to the left.


So the winner, walking away, is to use single use bags, but to recycle them once as rubbish bags. Of course, there are practical reason to use more sturdy bags, just not the environment, it seems.


The best way to leave a smaller footprint, of course...

[a64pilot]

I believe there are forms of plastic made from starch or other “naturally” occurring substances that break down rather quickly.
I’ve seen plastic packing peanuts made I believe from starch that dissolve in water.
What they dissolve into I don’t know.

[chowdan]

Originally Posted by Skipper Kenny

No, they don't, but I do.

It wasn't until Fukushima that I learned about iodine, fluorine, chlorine, and bromine, and how these things impact ones thyroid gland. [emoji2]



https://beyondthyroidcancer.com/iodi...s-of-halogens/

You do understand that fluoride is not fluorine right?

Also chlorine will evaporate out of water when left exposed to oxygen for roughly 24hours.

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I believe there are forms of plastic made from starch or other “naturally” occurring substances that break down rather quickly.....

It's called Cellophane (from Cellulose") and was first developed as a food wrap in 1924. It prevailed as such unit 1960 or so when Polypropylene film "Cling Wrap" or "Stretch Wrap") was developed.

FWIW...

[a64pilot]

I believe there is a whole group of “bioplastics” now, assumption is they are made from starch and other “bio” materials.
I hope they bio degrade, but don’t know.

Just is I believe other sources of “plastic” than petroleum chemical.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by funjohnson

All this time I felt smug because I use a backpack to carry my groceries....

Here's an interesting article about plastic bag use from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47161379

"Even the dreaded single-use shopping bag might not be the villain it seems.

If you've bought sturdy, reusable bags from your supermarket, it's likely they're made from non-woven polypropylene - and they are less damaging, but only if you use them at least 52 times.

And if your reusable bag is organic cotton, don't feel smug - the researchers reckon they need 20,000 uses to justify themselves. That's a shopping trip every day for over half a century."

The quoted study: https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publicatio...93614-73-4.pdf

Who knew making good environmental decisions were so complicated?

Yup, good one. I’m pretty sure this is not new though. I recall reading about this, or similar research, a decade or so ago when the cloth bag thing really got rolling.

This is a good example of why I am not so quick to pass judgement on others when it comes to many environmental challenges or choices. The fact is, to live is to place a burden on our ecosystems. Each choice comes with pros and cons, and when full life-cycle analysis is applied, many so-called “green” choices start to look a lot less environmentally beneficial (and are often worse).

[hpeer]

Mike,

Exactly! There are few things that are cut and dry. I’m pretty firmly in the AGW camp and think much should be done about it as soon as possible. I’m also a life long democrat, well, until Obama anyway. There was something about his “hope” platform, unfounded promises, that made me very Leary. Now Im totally opposed to the Green New Deal, I think it will set true adjustment back at least a decade. Coming from a career in rail transportation i very much opposed to HSR, in fact it’s simply a subsidy for the upper middle class. Enough negativity.

I have a few recommendations. First and foremost is to live simply. This is a great gift to the environment and to yourself. This lifestyle is contained in Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

But also take some steps to set aside some wild land. We have bought some forest land that we are saving from clear cutting. Not everyone can do that, but many can at least contribute to some forest stewardship program. Supposedly our 186 acres of forest offset greenhouse gasses from 44 autos. If everyone did this, set aside some wild forest, it would go a long way.

Be aware that WHERE you live greatly impacts your footprint. Living in the USA means you pay taxes to support a tremendously large and energy hungry military. It also means that you most likely run heat in the winter and AC in the summer. Living in a temperate climate, while trying to maintain a “comfortable” room temperature is very energy intensive. And no you can’t simply replace all existing housing stock with zero energy homes. We lived in Philly for decades without AC, it’s actually possible to do so and not melt. Trust me.

This is where “cruising” MAY lead one to a low footprint life. No heat, no AC, no need. Want a PC “tiny house” try a monohull. Equip with solar and wind gen and some batteries and you are set as an off-grid tree hugger. Sure the boat is most likely made of plastics, including the sails, but by comparison you are living a smaller footprint. (Even if you are still paying taxes to fund the military industrial complex, can’t have it all.).