Talk:Reuse of water bottles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This environment-related article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

--Alex 13:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)