Just wanted to note that the lifecycle assessment from DEFRA (which seems to be the _only_ scientific document mentioned, and the sole basis of this article) was updated in 2008 (_after_ this article was written?), drawing a different conclusion:

Reusable had a slightly larger baseline carbon footprint (570kg vs. 550kg from disposable)
The baseline could either be lowered 40% or raised 75% depending user handling. Lowering 40%: washing nappies in a
fuller load, outdoor line drying all of the time, and reusing nappies on a second child. Raising 75%: tumble-drying and only washing on 90 degrees (centigrade).

This updated study concludes that there is a significant environmental advantage from using reusable diapers, but that it depends on the user.

However: Basing your standpoint on ONE article hardly more intelligent or informed than having an opinion based on a feeling.

Note to Aahz: Great article taking a standpoint not often seen on the internet (why not?). Kudos for bringing up the flip-side of the coin, and trying to create constructive debate, but you appear to be more interested in getting responses in order to shoot them down. Those last comments are even borderline aggressive…

Cheers

You couldn’t find a single article or statement to support your theory that landfills aren’t designed to handle poop? Strange that the EPA page on Landfills doesn’t mention that fecal matter is prohibited from landfills. I cited that municipal site because it’s the only mention of human waste and landfills I could find on a fact based site. Probably because it’s not a problem. But I guess we’ll just have to take the word of an anonymous poster citing their own life experience on that one.

And, of course people raise hell whenever a new landfill is built. But that doesn’t mean we’re “running out of space”, it just means there are a lot of whiners who don’t want to “pay” the price for modern society. There’s plenty of land around and it’s plenty close to major population centers. Just like the recycling plants, people would rather kvetch about something, force regulations on others, and/or make up “facts” then deal with reality.
Aahz´s last [type] ..Should Prisoners Pay For Their Own Incarceration

1) Water temperature – The reference to temperature was based on one of the above comments and it was stated in degrees centigrade, so that was the temperature scale I used.

2) Empty Land – It may look empty to you but just try and find a piece of land to build a dump on. If San Jose were to announce tomorrow that they were planning to build a new landfill between the city and Morgan Hill I expect there would be considerable negative response. Now maybe I’m wrong because I don’t know your area at all, but it would NOT be difficult to find historical evidence of MANY instances where it has taken municipalities a long time to find a site to build a new landfill because of adjacent landowner objections.

3) Landfills and Sewage – “We’re not talking about sewage here, we’re talking about human waste products.” What is your definition of sewage?
According to biologyonline.org sewage is: “Waste matter carried away in sewers or drains. Human waste, often toxic to many organisms which can be treated in a variety of ways to eliminate its dangerous components.”
To write that all landfills are properly designed just because some bureaucrat told you so is ludicrous. I’ve seen with my own eyes enough landfills (mostly in smaller centers) to know that what I’m looking at is a hole in the ground and nothing more.
I can also see that waste handling is improving, but don’t tell me that there is little difference between the proper treatment of sewage and dumping it in a landfill.
4) Recycling – There are too many government regulations to start any type of business, but do you really think we should convince government to eliminate them all? I think not.

1) Washing temperature-

You say that people won’t wash in water over 60 degrees on a regular basis. This piqued my curiosity so I went scouring the web for washing machine water temperatures and found the following-

A Maytag Repair Manual states: “Check the water heater. It should be set to deliver a minimum 120° F (49° C) hot water at the tap.” and “REMEMBER: In wash water temperatures below 65° F, detergents do not dissolve well or clean well. Care labels define cold water as up to 85° F.”.

An appliance repair man states in an online forum: “Hot water should be close to 120-140 degrees F. Warm water fill should be 100 degrees F. Cold water is approx 60-80 degrees F.” About.com agrees with these numbers.

Apparently in Germany washing machines display actual temps instead of just “Hot, Warm, Cold”. According to posters on an English-Test forum thread: “Well, the temperature panel of my washing machine has five levels: 95° [203°F], 60° [140°F], 40° [104°F], 30° [86°F] and funnily enough: cold.” and “The maximum temperature is 90° C, the lowest 30° [86°F]. ‘Cold’ is also an option. I have never used a temperature above 40° C. [104°F]”

2) Proximity of empty land-

Well, here in Morgan Hill we’re less than 20 miles from the 10th largest city in the United States (San Jose – pop. ~1,000,000) and those 20 miles are almost all empty and largely unused.

Care to cite a source to support your assertion otherwise?

3) Landfills and “sewage”-

We’re not talking about sewage here, we’re talking about human waste products. According to Snohomish County, WA’s Public Works department: “Landfills are designed to safely handle substances such as dog waste, cat litter, and dirty diapers.”

4) Few diaper recycling facilities-

Can’t argue with you here. Of course, the reason there are few of these facilities is simply because there is not enough demand for them. In other words, not enough people care enough about disposable diapers to convince entrepreneurs to be willing to fight through all the government regulations required to start such a business. Want more diaper recycling? Convince your government to drop all the regulation!

I look forward to your response!