Talk:Reuse of water bottles/Archive 1

Too Long

This article is too long to be merged with the article on bottled water, I think the bottled water article should have a summary of this article and a link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.146.1 (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Antimony

As of January 2006, there's some additional research into this issue that appears to show that antimony leaches from PET(E) bottles into their contents (water, in this case). Something about this should be mentioned in this article - any takers? Here are some links on the issue: http://www.lfpress.com/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=120232&x=articles&s=restos http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/mar/science/kc_antimony.html http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=antimony+water+bottles&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

--GameGod 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is less likely to be an issue in re-used water bottles, as compared to bottles sitting on shelves at supermarkets. Why? Because for chemicals to leach out of plastic takes "some amount of time". Most people who are re-using water bottles, do it on the day they are going to drink the water. The water sitting at the supermarket has been in contact with the food-grade plastic longer than the water you just put in the bottle this morning / last night. So which one do you think is more likely to have dissolved antimony out of plastic into the water?Garrie 23:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And this link confirms my suggestion above. Water in re-used bottles most likely contains less Antimony than the water that was in the bottle when it was bought off the shelf, because the antimony accumulates over time that the water is in contact with the bottle.Garrie 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation?

(I'm a newbie to Wikipedia, so pardon me if I'm doing things incorrectly. If I am violating some protocols, I would appreciate some constructive feedback.)

I have also seen the info on reusing water bottles being forwarded around on emails, but the truth of the matter is, it's false. See the following link: http://www.snopes.com/toxins/bottles.asp

Almost all of the articles you find out there are were based on this mistaken research. I am removing the statements that I have confirmed are false from the above link: - IBWA does not assert that harmful chemical leach from bottles - Re-use does not use more natural resources than buying new ones - Re-use does not prevent plastic from being recycled - Removed the University of Idaho study since it was incorrect

I would suggest that you do additional research and confirm the rest of the statements directly from their sources (IBWA, CBWA, etc.).

-- Dean Feb 24, 2004

Misinformation Response

Hi Dean,

I appreciate your corrections to the article I wrote. Indeed there is quite a lot of misinformation out there. Thanks for making the article more accurate. I will try to find out the official positions of the IBWA and CBWA.

Regarding protocol, I think you addressed the problem in the correct way. However, I was at first a bit confused by your edits. It seemed as if you had simply removed the text. I had to click on the link to understand why.

Perhaps you could have explained why in the "summary" box before submitting the changes; or you could have addressed the issue on the Talk page first. Also, you might want to Sign Up, as an IP address sometimes looks more suspicious than a username when part of an article is removed. But in any case, thanks for your improvements to the article.

Acegikmo1 02:02, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dean,

With reference to section "2 Other chemicals of concern", Last para. I guess the explanation given here and explanation given in external link is contradicting. Please correct me if i am wrong.

Thanks, Sudesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudesh nayak (talk • contribs) 09:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Washing

"Reusing water bottles is the practice of refilling and reuse of plastic water bottles designed for one use, with tap water for multiple uses."

"Reusing single-use bottles is a common domestic practice. Typically the bottle is washed out with warm soapy water after each use. Periodically a bleach solution may be employed to kill bacteria. Washing and re-using bottles cuts down on waste and landfill, and drinking tap water is much less resource-intensive than buying commercially bottled water."

People actually put all kinds of liquids in re-used water bottles. I put in filtered water. Small bottles of water are very expensive; it is wasteful not to re-use them.

It might be good to wash them well. It might be good to occasionally sanitize them. But most of us are probably too lazy, and just rinsing them out is perhaps common!-69.87.200.99 18:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-write needed for 'Health risks from reuse of water bottles'

I'm not much for writing on wikipedia, but this section seems poorly written by the standards around here. I'd imagine that addressing the reader directly is something that would generally be frowned upon. I'm not sure how to label that something is in need of a rewrite, but it might be a good idea for this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.180.138 (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs Re-Write

I think this article is terribly written, featuring loaded language that directly addresses the reader. My favorite example is: "Think the water bottlers want to dispel this rumor and encourage you to bottle your own water?" Furthermore, the article is written with the tone of ELF narration. Needs work. I'd flag this page, but I don't know how.

yuck.

wikihow is thataway --> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.122.13 (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This article should be removed

Apart from defining 'reuse of water bottles' (meaning is clear from the title) and stating a trivial fact in a self-contradicting manner, this article seems to be about the (non)existence of risks of plastic bottles completely unrelated to recycling water bottles. The risks would be similar if the bottle would not be recycled or contain cola or milk. A cyclic definition 'reuse of water bottles is the practice of reusing water bottles' should not be present in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.200.104 (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed confused statement

Today's bottles are made using PET, not DEHA.

I removed this confused statement; as a plasticizer, DEHA can be used in combination with (not as a replacement for) PET. -- Beland (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ARE YOU F'ING KIDDING ME, MAN?

You can't just quote about.f'ing.com. What kind of a source is that, man? I thought Wikipedia was awesome until I read this crap article. I'm so disappointed. p.s.: I'm serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.72.180 (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

chemicals

The article seems to be about reuse of PET water bottles intended for a single use. The chemicals of concern are only in some polycarbonate bottles intended for multiple uses. This section is not relevant. Pkgx (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)