Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Filling landfills or wasting water....

149 replies

robin3 · 31/05/2006 15:00

For DS2 a friend has gone 80% of way to persuading me to use the washable nappies but DP still thinks that we should concentrate on saving water this summer and this would surely create another couple of loads a week if not more.

What d'ya reckon?

OP posts:
Kathy1972 · 02/06/2006 11:39

Was reading in Yachting Monthly about a couple who were doing long-distance ocean passages with their baby. They used reusable nappies and trailed them behind the boat to get them clean.
Surely that beats everything in green-ness? (Sadly not practical for most of us though Sad)

Elibean · 02/06/2006 14:12

Nappy laundry services are tempting (though I imagine expensive) but.....the petrol consumption and emissions make it a pretty un-green solution, according to articles I've read. Am beginning to think dry-pailing and washing every 2-3 days might be within my knackered old energy limits though....

MrsBadger · 02/06/2006 14:30

Kathy that sounds like an excellent idea!
now, just have to find the cash for a yacht and all our nappy dilemmas will be solved...

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

pablopatito · 02/06/2006 14:54

Wow! What's it like going on a long distance ocean yacht trip with a baby? I mean its hard enough trying to keep a baby happy and safe in a house never mind in a small enclosed wooden box in the middle of the ocean. And trying to change a nappy in a storm can't be fun.

Kathy1972 · 02/06/2006 16:01

Well the article was very gung-ho, kind of 'everyone told us we could never do it but actually it was a doddle' kind of thing. I remember them saying that the baby never got seasick even when they did. I think most people who sail with babies have a carseat to strap them into when it gets rough.
We haven't even got as far as taking dd out in a dinghy yet Grin

Re the nappies, they said that they were lucky their baby's skin wasn't sensitive to salt. If it had been it would have been a disaster as they wouldn't have had enough fresh water to rinse them in and they hadn't got room for months worth of disposables.

rarrie · 02/06/2006 20:09

"...chemicals in disposables and the heat they generate for boys around their bits which can result in infertility..."

Disposables generate heat??? Doubt it. Is she claiming an exothermic reaction between urine and nappy material? I dare say that sounds a bit far fetched.

Sorry, Ewila but the orginal poster was correct! Wink

This is from the Archives of disease in childhood. (But do note that whilst some studies support thsi research, there is other research which disputes the testicular cancer link).

Other implications of disposable nappies

HEAL, C; COOPER, C Consultant Paediatricians

Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Wigan Lane, Wigan WW1 2NN, UK
Editor,—Partsch, Aukamp, and Sippell propose that increased testicular temperature in early childhood might affect later spermatogenesis. They suggest that disposable nappies could contribute to this and demonstrate a significant difference between the scrotal skin temperature recorded in infants using disposable nappies and washable cotton nappies. They mention in their introductory paragraph that other environmental factors may be important in the deterioration seen in male reproductive health over recent years, but do not relate any of these factors to disposable nappies. 1

There are many concerns about the use of disposable nappies in addition to increasing scrotal temperature that may impact on future fertility and general health. The disposable nappy consists of a plastic outer layer, a layer of superabsorbent chemicals and inner liner. Nappies are not subject to government controls or independent testing and disposable nappy manufacturers do not need to disclose the contents. 2 3

Recently, concern has been raised about the presence of Tributyl Tin (TBT) in disposable nappies. Greenpeace and Women's Environmental Network have commissioned research which showed that there were significant levels of TBT in many brands of disposable nappy, including those on sale in the UK. 4 5 Babies may be in contact with up to 3.6 times the WHO's estimated tolerable daily intake. TBT is an environmental pollutant which is used in anti-fouling ship paint. It is known to disrupt the endocrine and immune function of marine shellfish and there are international plans to phase out its use.

The superabsorbent chemicals used include sodium polyacrylate crystals which form a gel in contact with urine. This gel can be seen on the skin in contact with it and there are particular concerns about this entering the body through broken skin in the nappy area. Sodium polyacrylate, along with other chemical constituents that increase absorbency, has been removed from tampons as it was associated with the development of Toxic Shock Syndrome. 6 The inner liner has previously been shown to contain nonylphenyl ethoxylate, which acts as an oestrogen mimic, and dioxins. 3

In addition, the use of disposable nappies has important environmental consequences which may impact on child health. Manufacture of disposable nappies uses 3.5 times more energy, 8 times as many non-renewable resources, and 90 times as many renewable resources when compared with washable nappies. The description of such nappies as “disposable” is misleading. In this country, nappies make up approximately 4% of household waste (800 000 tonnes per year) and every disposable nappy and its contents ever used is still present in a landfill site. 2

There are environmentally friendly and safe alternatives to the disposable nappy. Modern washable nappies are very different from the traditional idea of buckets of “terries”. There are now shaped cotton nappies with velcro fastenings, alternatives to nappy pins, breathable covers, and disposable paper inner liners. Concern that the incidence of nappy rash is higher with washable nappies is unfounded—it has been shown that it is the length of contact of urine with the skin that is most important in the development of nappy rash 7 and it may be that an infant in a disposable has more chance of developing nappy rash as they are often changed less frequently than an infant in washable nappies. In addition, there are cost savings both to individuals and organisations using washable nappies, and there have been several successful hospital projects using washable nappies on postnatal wards. 2 3

As paediatricians committed to the health of children, we should be aware of the issues raised by the use of disposable nappies, the alternatives that exist, and sources of information and support for parents who are concerned about ensuring a safe and sustainable future for their children.

SenoraPostrophe · 02/06/2006 20:14

much as I am pro washable nappies I'm pretty sure that the study they're talking about compared the scrotal temperature of boy in disposables vs that of boys in washables without rubbers . which makes it kind of meaningless. There are flawed studies on both sides!

juuule · 02/06/2006 20:24

Don't think anyone uses rubbers do they? Most wraps/covers are breathable pul. The plastic covers of disposables don't 'breathe' afaik.

mummyhill · 03/06/2006 01:07

My mother bought some rubbers but I don't use them unless I have all thw wraps in the wash cause they leave elastic lines round cuffs and waist.

PUL,Fleece and Wool wraps are all breathable

scienceteacher · 03/06/2006 08:25

How did ship paint get into nappies?

bloss · 03/06/2006 08:59

The single biggest environmental cost of cloth in those studies which compare cloth and disposables is tumbledrying. Unlike the assumptions in the study, most people do not tumbledry all the time - so that has a huge impact on the analysis.

Secondly, if you're worried about the environment, choose unbleached cotton, or (better) hemp or (best of all) bamboo. These are fantastic fabrics that leave a much smaller footprint - bamboo especially. Again, if the studies were actually using up-to-date information, the analysis would be substantially different.

Also, cloth cost little to produce (because you only need, say, 20 per baby) but a lot to wash. Disposables on the other hand cost heaps to produce (because you need several thousand per baby) but much less to dispose of (landfill). The main study that is usually quoted only compared the environmental impact of washing versus landfill. But if it didn't take into account production costs, it's ridiculously skewed towards disposables.

Finally, I tried cloth because of environmental scruples but I would never go back to disposables even if they were the same on the eco-front, because I prefer cloth.

Oh, and I know that disps are hotter (because not really breathable, unlike cloth used with breathable covers) because in the early days when I was still trying both, ds's scrotum would hang down when wearing disps but would tuck up nicely when wearing cloth. Little barometer right there in the nappy!

scienceteacher · 03/06/2006 09:53

What do you mean that cloth nappies are breathable and disposable nappies are not?

bloss · 03/06/2006 10:38

Just what it says really - that it is very difficult for air to pass in and out of a disposable nappy because of what it's made of. But it's much easier with a nappy made of natural fabrics or breathable synthetics like PUL or fleece.

scienceteacher · 03/06/2006 11:16

What are disposables made of that prevents air passing in and out?

SoupDragon · 03/06/2006 11:32

Don't they have a plastic coating?

SoupDragon · 03/06/2006 11:32

And that water absorbing core probably doesn't "breathe" either.

scienceteacher · 03/06/2006 11:34

No, they have a non-woven backing that allows air to pass through, but not anything 'big' like water.

morocco · 03/06/2006 11:43

just a non scientific aside about heat in nappies, I use fleece liners and sadly I think those must be hot too, using the 'scrote' test!!

Elibean · 03/06/2006 14:08

Blush what is PUL, please?

Friend has just offered to give me her first size nappies, as her dd is getting too big for them - that, combined with article I read recently, combined with you lot, has clinched it. I'm going for it. Now if only I could make head or tail of whats easiest/best between all the varieties...

azroc · 03/06/2006 19:41

Elibean, I started a thread in the nappies section asking people's opinions on different washable nappies and wraps. I don't know how to link to it but it should be easy to find as I only started it the day before yesterday (I think!)Smile

azroc · 03/06/2006 19:43

Oh, and I can't remember what PUL stands for, at a guess PolyUrethane Laminate? Or is that daft?Blush

scienceteacher · 03/06/2006 20:34

So PUL (polyurethane laminate), and fleece (polyester) are 'good' materials from the petrochemicals industry, but any oil-derived raw material in a disposable nappy is 'bad'?

How do we arrive at these conclusions?

SoupDragon · 03/06/2006 20:36

One difference is that the disposable nappies are used once and thrown away to sit in a landfil for X00 years whereas reusables are used again and again and again .

scienceteacher · 03/06/2006 20:41

But that's a different issue. I was interested in the actual materials that are universally good in cloth nappies, and universally bad in disposables. That is because no one will engage in the Aral Sea tragedy caused by the cotton industry...

juuule · 03/06/2006 20:54

Let's assume that PUL is as bad as plastic backing on disps. It must be better for each baby to use only 12 pul wraps rather than 5-6000 plastic backings. And those 12 wraps can be used for subsequent babies whereas the 5-6000 backings will be used once and hang around in landfill for hundreds of years. So in terms of petrochemical resources the pul wraps have to be better (12 wraps vs X times 5-6000)
The Aral Sea tragedy was indeed a tragedy but that was due to communist mismanagement as far as I've read about it(which isn't a great deal) and not specific to the crop being grown. Will have to check on it.