Disposable Everything

It’s becoming more obvious to me the extent of the world’s insanity. Flipping through the channels, I’m inundated with advertisements for products that not only do I not need, but also I can’t understand how anyone could justify needing, let alone buying. In particular I’m most annoyed at the home cleaning products, whose rate of unceasing development is a cause for amazement. How can so much development money be focused on making the task of keeping a house clean any easier than it already is?

Look at the recent rash of new paper-towel-plus-cleaner products, like Procter & Gamble‘s Swiffer and SC Johnson‘s Pledge Grab-It, that take the concept of paper towels to a whole new level. Now not only can you clean, you can disinfect like you’ve never disinfected before! And when you’re done you can just throw them away, environmental consequences be damned!

There’s such an obsessive-compulsive desperation to the pitches for these products that I half expect to see a commercial in the future that goes something like this:

Pan to shot of Brendon crouched in the corner of his bathroom, scrubbing his body with Scrubboâ„¢-brand personal body cleaning towels while rocking gently back and forth.

Brendon (mumbling): Still not clean, must get clean…

As if diapers weren’t bad enough for filling our landfills, now we’ve got Helen Homemaker nuking every bacterium that dares to step into her household, only to throw away the toxic results and create even more garbage. With the super-duper cleansing power of these new products it’s no wonder bacteria are becoming more resistant when we’re throwing every disinfectant at them at every opportunity.

These aren’t the only environmentally irresponsible products coming from these companies. There’s also the new rash of facial cleansing cloths, and disposable containers competing for our global garbage can. What ever happened to reducing our waste output?

What’s more disturbing is the amount of technology and funding thrown at solving problems that don’t exist, while real problems remain unsolved. Christ, I’ve got toothpaste and laundry detergent that gets my teeth and clothes so white they’re positively luminescent, and we still haven’t got an electric car! Part of me wonders if somewhere in the world researchers wring their hands and wish aloud, “If only we could get some of the Colgate or Sunlight funding, then we’d have this cancer thing licked!”

Don’t get me wrong, I like things clean and orderly. But after a while it seems to be counterproductive to clean things when you’re creating more garbage than you’re cleaning up. There’s a point of diminishing returns when you’re expending so many resources on keeping things clean instead of doing worthwhile work. Could it be that we’re turning into a race of people who need to wash our hands so often and so thoroughly that we never actually accomplish anything useful?

Nuclear: Clean Energy?

There’s a lot of things we’ve all heard about nuclear power, but I don’t think any of them come close to this ad from the Nuclear Energy Institute in the May issue of The Atlantic Monthly. It would appear that advocates of nuclear energy have chosen to capitalize on the United States’ desire to balance its growing need for energy with the public’s desire to protect the environment. But can nuclear energy really be the source of clean air energy? Or is this simply the industry attempting to exploit public’s ignorance of the dangers of nuclear energy?

I doubt most people are unaware of the real threat presented by the by-products of nuclear energy. Just this week, the US Congress voted on the establishment of a centralized storage facility, under the Yucca Mountains in Nevada, for the country’s nuclear waste. Nevada’s governor, Kenny Guinn, is understandably resistant to the idea. I wonder why?

Fact: Though nuclear energy doesn’t pollute the air directly, the by-products of nuclear energy are extremely toxic. For example, depleted uranium, a by-product of enriching uranium for use as fuel in nuclear reactors, has been linked to birth defects and cancer. Depleted uranium can be aerosolized, making it an airborne inhalation risk.

Fact: The NEI’s membership is predominantly comprised of companies from the nuclear energy industry, all of who are attempting to turn the public’s fear of air pollution into cash. Noteworthy members include General Electric‘s Nuclear Energy division, and American Electric Power, two prominent names among the other universities, insurers, and energy-brokerage institutions.

Fact: There are alternatives. Though dismissed by one member of the House of Representatives, alternatives such as wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal energy sources are not only viable, they are also more environmentally friendly. For example, a local Vancouver company, Blue Energy, has created a power generation technology based on tidal energy that has met with the approval of a number of environmental agencies, and offers to many advantages to ignore.

The most telling part of the NEI ad is its tagline: Clean air is so 21st century. It gives the reader the impression of a bored Valley girl commenting on a unfashionable and outdated trend. Is that the message NEI wants us to take away from their ad? That clean air is unfashionable? Perhaps this is a fatal Freudian slip that reveals the NEI’s true intentions.