Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dirty Diapers Used To Grow Mushrooms

samzenpus posted about a month and a half ago | from the hold-the-mushrooms-please dept.

Idle 97

Zothecula writes While their contents might be considered an environmental hazard by many, disposable diapers themselves pose a more significant problem for the environment. According to the EPA, the average baby will work their way through 8,000 of them before they end up in landfill where they'll take centuries to break down. In an effort to reduce the problem, scientists at Mexico's Autonomous Metropolitan University, Azcapotzalco (UAM-A), have turned used diapers to the task of growing mushrooms.

cancel ×

97 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

English usage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47832755)

"....the average baby will work their way through 8,000 of them before they end up in landfill where they'll take centuries to break down."

So is it the nappies or the baby which ends up in landfill?

Re:English usage (2)

Demena (966987) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833061)

In the end, both.

Re:English usage (1)

infinitelink (963279) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834623)

The issue you're complaining of is one that isn't resolvable within English without either (a) awkward or unwanted redundancy or (b) a significant modification to add markers to the grammar. Consequently, the grammar here is classic in form; besides the fact that, psychologically, the meaning is understood, the rule is that the pronoun takes as its antecedent the closest noun; a supporting rule (that for purposes of avoiding ambiguity actually frowns on the spoken grammar's usage in speech where "they" is employed as a singular--not it's a dumb rule if one is using writing to imitate speech, such as in dialog) is that the pronoun and antecedent must match in number--thus no "use of 'they' to avoid SEXIST!!!(F***ING PATRIARCHCAL BIGOTS, RAAAAAR!!!!) pronouns" made-up "RULES!!!!" by the insane imposed on the usage of everyone else. (I say that despite using 'they' all the time in speech--in writing, nay!) For the prep. phrase "of them" we know "average baby" is singular and therefore "of them" must apply to the earlier "diapers", likewise for "they/'ll" which does not need follow the phrase nor would be--if the writing is any good--taken as applying to "baby."

Re:English usage (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834789)

Actually, no. Why wouldn't any diapers end up in the landfill until all 8,000 are used? Everything about the sentence structure is awkward and confusing.

Re:English usage (1)

cas2000 (148703) | about a month and a half ago | (#47838433)

your sexist rant against singular "they" might have some validity if it wasn't for the fact that "they" has been used as a singular pronoun for at least 400 years (i.e. since approximately the beginning of modern english) and the fact that there are numerous nouns in the english language which can also be used as either singular or plural - "bacon" for example. it's not unusual.

in other words when using singular "they", the pronoun and antecedent *DO* match in number. No amount of ranting will change that fact.

Re:English usage (1)

Meski (774546) | about a month and a half ago | (#47850243)

You're putting bacon in landfill?? Heretic!

Re:English usage (1)

doccus (2020662) | about a month ago | (#47921599)

Naw, pretty simple, eh?"...8000 Diapers, before they.." They is directly after diapers, so "they" refers tothe the last noun in the sentence..

Re:English usage (1)

PPH (736903) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834627)

Judging by the quality of our school system, I'd say its the ankle-biters.

Re:English usage (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834785)

More concerning is that the baby takes centuries to break down.

Re:English usage (1)

Meski (774546) | about a month and a half ago | (#47850247)

Cue "baby in a blender" jokes.

Re:English usage (1)

magarity (164372) | about a month and a half ago | (#47835135)

"....the average baby will work their way through 8,000 of them before they end up in landfill where they'll take centuries to break down."

This is an episode of "Hoarders" I don't want to see; where they kept all 8,000 diapers before sending them to the landfill.

EWWWWWWW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47832777)

YUCK!

Do not want those mushrooms.

Re:EWWWWWWW (4, Funny)

Calydor (739835) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833145)

You should look up what that 'fertilizer' thing used for all grown crops is.

Re:EWWWWWWW (1)

Adriax (746043) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834821)

I call bull shit on this fertilizer stuff.

Re:EWWWWWWW (1)

Creepy (93888) | about a month and a half ago | (#47835035)

Heh, well bull shit (and cow shit) are useful field fertilizers. My grandpa had his herd in the fallow field every third year (on a corn->soybeans or wheat->fallow rotation or maybe it was the other way around).

Re:EWWWWWWW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47837181)

That's the joke.

You get a gold star.

Re:EWWWWWWW (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a month and a half ago | (#47835223)

Bullshit! (...right?)

No surprise, but a bad idea (4, Informative)

thsths (31372) | about a month and a half ago | (#47832783)

Mushrooms used to be grown on horse manure, and I doubt they are very "selective". So this is no surprise.

However, it is well known to be a bad idea. You do not grow food for human consumption on human feces, because the risk of contamination is too high. Horse manure is ok, as is growing animal fodder on human feces.

And there are better schemes to get rid of old diapers - since they are rich in high quality cellulose that can be used after a good clean.

Re:No surprise, but a bad idea (5, Informative)

Kkloe (2751395) | about a month and a half ago | (#47832829)

"The project is not intended to produce mushrooms targeted for human consumption, since the main objective is to get rid of diapers to avoid damaging the environment more," Valdemar Espinosa added. "However, the mushrooms could be used as food supplement for cattle, the gel can be used to increase moisture retention in some crops and the plastic can be sent to recycling."

Re:No surprise, but a bad idea (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834515)

Man - I hope they come up with a method to automate that separation process!

Re:No surprise, but a bad idea (4, Informative)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a month and a half ago | (#47832847)

Nothing new. If you have a compost toilet, you will have encountered spontaneous mushroom growth on your compost pile often enough. Also edible ones, like inkcaps. There is nothing against seeding it with a known mushroom kind. When you do that for your own household, you will know what diseases you have, and you get them anyway or are already resistant to them. Also know that the compost process kills any disease over time, and most diseases within days.

But I would never add a plastic, chemically poisoned diaper to my compost pile. Most modern diapers are chemical waste and need to be processed as such.

Re: No surprise, but a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47834139)

Unlike plants and animals that store toxins within them, mushrooms break toxins into peaces and make the toxins disappear completely.

Re: No surprise, but a bad idea (2)

guruevi (827432) | about a month and a half ago | (#47835719)

Man, I hope some time a mushroom will break down toxins into world peace or at least peace in the Middle East.

Re:No surprise, but a bad idea (1)

bigfinger76 (2923613) | about a month and a half ago | (#47836259)

Only thermophilic composting can kill diseases, and even then only the material in the core. A composting toilet usually doesn't have the critical mass.

Re:No surprise, but a bad idea (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a month and a half ago | (#47869769)

You'd be surprised. My compost toilet is a "collector" type, so it is basically a bin with a toilet seat on top (see http://www.thingiverse.com/thi... [thingiverse.com] ) and it must be emptied on a compost pile. So the composting should take place outside the toilet itself. However, the composting process already starts in the toilet and hardly needs any mass at all. It just needs rest and the right ingredients.

Re:No surprise, but a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47839781)

What about guests wanting to use the bathroom? You might be confident that none of the members of your household have any nasty pathogens, but can you have the same confidence for friends or extended family who come to visit? Or do you say, "no toilet for you"?

Re:No surprise, but a bad idea (2)

Edis Krad (1003934) | about a month and a half ago | (#47832879)

From the TFA

"The project is not intended to produce mushrooms targeted for human consumption, since the main objective is to get rid of diapers to avoid damaging the environment more"

Re:No surprise, but a bad idea (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833289)

Try and look up a video of a modern mushroom farm. This is damn near appatizing compared to the way they're normally grown. After I saw it first hand, I started vigorously cleaning all mushrooms I got from the market.

Re:No surprise, but a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833491)

What do you think you'll be eating in space you nutter?

Re:No surprise, but a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833589)

"Used to?"

You've obviously never had the "pleasure" of smelling Kennett Square, PA, mushroom capital of the US.

Re:No surprise, but a bad idea (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | about a month and a half ago | (#47837137)

>You do not grow food for human consumption on human feces, because the risk of contamination is too high.

Who are you, Jon Snow? You know nothing.

As long as the faeces is properly composted/treated to break down pathogens, its perfectly safe to use for food crops.

really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47832795)

farmer communities in Mexico have many years doing exactly that for human consumption
And I bet Mexicans are not the only ones doing it in that way...

Might want to rewrite that summary (0)

endoboy (560088) | about a month and a half ago | (#47832835)

Tortured sentence structure anyone? Or are they really are landfilling babies at the experimental mushroom farm???

Not that we ever expected much from the editors at /., but one could hope for a bare minimum of literacy.

Re:Might want to rewrite that summary (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a month and a half ago | (#47832965)

one could hope for a bare minimum of literacy.

Yes, one could hope.

Or are they really are landfilling babies at the experimental mushroom farm???

Oh well.

As for the sentence in question, while there is an amusing ambiguity if one wishes to look for it, I don't think most people are going to have a problem parsing it.

Re:Might want to rewrite that summary (1)

robbak (775424) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833153)

Well, the sentence parses nice and cleanly. It states that "the average baby will (...) end up in landfill..."

The sentence is plain wrong - what its author wrote differs from what he intended.

Re:Might want to rewrite that summary (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833453)

the average baby will work their way through 8,000 of them before they end up in landfill

It's only as ambiguous as you want to make it.

Re:Might want to rewrite that summary (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834805)

through 8,000 of them before they end up in landfill

So are all 8,000 diapers used before any end up in a landfill? That is one crazy hoarder.

It's only as ambiguous as terrible writing.

Re:Might want to rewrite that summary (1)

Iniamyen (2440798) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834541)

YOUR sentence is plain wrong: "The sentence parses (...) the average baby..."

What the heck are you implying here?!

Re:Might want to rewrite that summary (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833577)

Or are they really are landfilling babies at the experimental mushroom farm???

They're only using baby lawyers, so it's OK.

Re:Might want to rewrite that summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833639)

Tortured sentence structure anyone? Or are they really are landfilling babies at the experimental mushroom farm???

Not that we ever expected much from the editors at /., but one could hope for a bare minimum of literacy.

When you hire Indians the English language is the first casualty. Dice Holdings is a shill for Korporate America and their bottom-sucking CEOs who love indentured servant class called Indians. How the heck does Dice stay in business? The job ads are recycled month after month.

Uh. YUCK? (1)

Chas (5144) | about a month and a half ago | (#47832839)

I already don't eat mushrooms due to food allergies (and trying to tell them the specific TYPES I'm allergic to is a waste of time).

So this is just another reason for me to NEVER eat a frickin mushroom.

Just...eww.

Re:Uh. YUCK? (1)

lev400 (1193967) | about a month and a half ago | (#47832901)

this is just another reason for me to NEVER eat a frickin mushroom.

How about you read the article? "The project is not intended to produce mushrooms targeted for human consumption, since the main objective is to get rid of diapers to avoid damaging the environment more"

Re:Uh. YUCK? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833439)

That's very reassuring. Not.

Re:Uh. YUCK? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834207)

Key word? Intended because how long you think its gonna be before some employee figures out with the high cost of mushrooms there is profits to be made?

More like 3000-4000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47832841)

My daughter has used 3.129 diapers, and I think she's about average.
Yes, I keep an Excel file with all the diapes purchases :-)

Re:More like 3000-4000 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833419)

How do you use 0.129 of a diaper?

Re:More like 3000-4000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833707)

How do you use 0.129 of a diaper?

By being European and using the dot as the thousands separator, whereupon you realize that the quoted number is three thousand, one hundred and twenty nine.

Re:More like 3000-4000 (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833763)

How do you use 0.129 of a diaper?

Based on the subject, it's either a typo or he's from a country that uses a dot instead of a comma for delimiting thousands.

Re: More like 3000-4000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833835)

But his comment is typed in English. The whole comment, including the numbers, should have been translated.

Re:More like 3000-4000 (2)

SydShamino (547793) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834445)

Modern cloth diapers [amazon.com] , while expensive, are very easy to use, and contain waste as well as disposable diapers. They pay for themselves in a reasonably short time and prevent all of this landfill waste.

Our daughter was premature, and we used disposables until she was large enough to move into the "one size" BumGenius diapers we got from our registry. I think we have ~20 of them, which means about $340 spent and a 3ish day supply without laundry. When we're done with them, though, we can resell them - yes, they have resale value.

The alternative [amazon.com] we would be using is $0.21 each, so we'll break even after 245 or so days. Larger disposable diapers are more expensive so the savings will grow with time, not shrink, and the cloth ones are very adjustable.

Re:More like 3000-4000 (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834453)

HE washer takes about 2 hours to clean a sanitary load, but uses just a few cents of water and detergent. Cleaning costs are in the noise.

Force the manufacturer to take them back (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47832843)

And to recycle them in a sustainable way. Problem solved. In general, I think that should be the case for a lot of things.

Re:Force the manufacturer to take them back (1)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833085)

And to recycle them in a sustainable way. Problem solved. In general, I think that should be the case for a lot of things.

Spot on. Although the manufacturer would simply send:
- 95% to landfill
- 5% for recycle

Just enough figures to give them some made up "Save the planet" and "Recycle Aware" certification for marketing. Profit!

Re:Force the manufacturer to take them back (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a month and a half ago | (#47835043)

And to recycle them in a sustainable way. Problem solved. In general, I think that should be the case for a lot of things.

Better yet... create a manufacturing tax... $3 per individual diaper sold. With 95% of the valuable refundable, upon proof of the volume of materials being recycled.

Refunds/incentives contingent upon both the recycling of sold product AND the use of recycled materials to manufacturer new products.

Re:Force the manufacturer to take them back (1)

operagost (62405) | about a month and a half ago | (#47835263)

How do you expect families to afford diapers that cost over $3 each?

Oh, you thought somehow the "rich capitalists" were just going to eat it?

Re:Force the manufacturer to take them back (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a month and a half ago | (#47836737)

How do you expect families to afford diapers that cost over $3 each?

I expect that the families would refuse to purchase the product at such a price, therefore, the manufacturer will not be able to sell them for $3. The manufacturer will have to meet the recycling requirements, in order to continue to sell the product.

If they don't, then the manufacturers will be outcompeted by other options.

It is not as if disposable diapers are a fundamental need --- they are just a luxury, and there are other options.

Re:Force the manufacturer to take them back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47839111)

you feel free to deal with cloth diapers.. me... once was enough, tyvm. and i think most parents will agree. after the first in cloth diapers (even if through a service)... disposable is the ***only**** way to go for their brothers and sisters..

Re:Force the manufacturer to take them back (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | about a month and a half ago | (#47842857)

No way. I used cloth diapers at the end with #3 and had her potty trained quickly after I started using them, exclusively with #4 and had him potty trained by 9 months. The amount of money I saved not only by buying the cloth diapers, but by having quickly potty trained kids was amazing. And there was no more running out just before shopping day, or having to buy more when a baby got sick and had diarrhea, or having to call my husband at work (with a 1 car family) and tell him I've run out, or half a pack just being a loss when a baby has a growth spurt, etc. etc. If I ever have any more it is going to be cloth diapers all the way.

The only way disposables are better is if you are using them wrong by putting the poop in the trash.

Re:Force the manufacturer to take them back (2)

Ann O'Nymous-Coward (460094) | about a month and a half ago | (#47835145)

Force the manufacturer to take them back

Sooo, you mean shovel all the shit back in the baby?

All jokes aside, that'd be about as easy and practical as forcing manufacturers to take back and sustainably recycle used products.

Let me guess. Shiitake mushrooms. (0)

zephvark (1812804) | about a month and a half ago | (#47832877)

Surely it would be more effective to recycle coffee grounds for the purpose. They're already fairly sterile and must be available in huge quantities. Or has Starbucks already found a secondary market?

Re:Let me guess. Shiitake mushrooms. (1)

evilbessie (873633) | about a month and a half ago | (#47832907)

There is an awful lot of waste and fungi eat most things, so we'll probably end up with many of them in a few years.

Re:Let me guess. Shiitake mushrooms. (2, Funny)

chthon (580889) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833089)

Plump helmet explosion?

Re:Let me guess. Shiitake mushrooms. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a month and a half ago | (#47832929)

afaik starbucks already gives the grounds away for hippies to grow tomatoes and weed with.

that is, if you got a large source of used coffee beans, you probably already have some use for them that's better than mushrooms yuck.

All that work (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | about a month and a half ago | (#47832943)

So that's 16k diapers for twins... well, we guesstimated 10k. The thought of carrying that many diapers up to the third floor and then back down fully 'charged' convinced us to use cloth diapers.

Now we just polute the rivers with the laundry detergent :p.

Re:All that work (1)

Demena (966987) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833075)

You have a choice of detergents. If you use a biodegrable detergent it will not harm the waterways. I've seen the difference on a farm with no 'mains' connections.

Re:All that work (2)

jabuzz (182671) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833761)

The problem with detergents is that they *ARE* biodegradable. The phosphate in the detergent encourages algae to grow which causes problems in the rivers.

Re:All that work (1)

Demena (966987) | about a month and a half ago | (#47843321)

There are degrees of biodegradability. Even gold is biodegradable in the longest term (you use some in your biochemistry). As I said, you have a choice of detergents. Pick the right one.

Re:All that work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47834901)

All I can say is, we have twins, the wheelie bin is constantly full, and we have mushrooms growing on our (recently laid) lawn. Didn't bother RTFA, but it must be right ;-)

Why SPAM? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47832961)

can anybody tell me why this article is marked SPAM?

http://slashdot.org/submission/3822265/e-cigarette-warnings-are-alarmist

Mushrooms grow on excrements?!? (1)

Megol (3135005) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833003)

No shit...

The numbers don't add up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833025)

8000 nappies. 8000/365 is about 21.
Assuming three years in them, that's seven a day every day.
Babies don't use that many. On a bad day yes, but not on average.

Re:The numbers don't add up.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833647)

Now if only the summary had said

"...the average baby will work their way through 8,000 of them a year before..."

instead of

"...the average baby will work their way through 8,000 of them before..."

See if you can work out what the difference might be.

Re:The numbers don't add up.... (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834087)

8000 nappies. 8000/365 is about 21. Assuming three years in them, that's seven a day every day.

Three year assumption is what got you. Today, I've seen parents keep their children in diapers or something other that allows them to shit in place, until they have to toilet train them in order to get into Kindergarten.

The disposable diaper manuafacturers would like to keep us in them from birth to death.

Re:The numbers don't add up.... (2)

omnichad (1198475) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834825)

You're assuming they're only counting the 3 years at the beginning of life. What about the 10 years at the end of their life?

Psychedelic fecal trip (1)

Stardner (3660081) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833037)

This has to be the most ghetto way to grow shrooms.

Re: Psychedelic fecal trip (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833863)

No, the most ghetto way would be to grow them in a blend composed of convenience store ash and the composted bodies of cigar thieves.

Now we have a complete buisness plan! (5, Funny)

fellip_nectar (777092) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833365)

Phase 1: Collect underpants

Phase 2: Grow mushrooms

Phase 3: Profit

Re:Now we have a complete buisness plan! (1)

operagost (62405) | about a month and a half ago | (#47835351)

I'm really sorry I didn't see this when I could have used my mod points. LOL

8000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833391)

8000 diapers per baby works out to close to ten per day. I doubt my son used anywhere near that (and I was the one to change them much of the time).

Sounds like EPA bullshit to me.

Re:8000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833705)

8000 diapers per baby works out to close to ten per day. I doubt my son used anywhere near that (and I was the one to change them much of the time).

Sounds like EPA bullshit to me.

Sounds like an argument in favour of not having any more humans popping out of mommy. I still maintain that 85% of the world's population needs to be wiped off the face of the planet because nobody needs 7 billion humans. Just connect the newborn to rectal and urinary catheters and a feeding tube from birth to their fifth birthday down on the factory nursery. Parents can retrieve their child after their fifth birthday for a flat fee of ten thousand dollars/pounds/yen/euros/whatever-local-currency. No diapers necessary. And the fat children get sent to the fat farm for further processing.

Re:8000? (2)

matria (157464) | about a month and a half ago | (#47835749)

I worked as a nanny for triplets for nine months. I'd say that I changed each one 8-10 times a day. The well-baby clinic said it was the first set of triplets they'd ever seen that never had any sign of diaper rash. The grandparents provided the diapers, with the stipulation that I use as many as I saw fit without worrying about cost.

Re:8000? (1)

matria (157464) | about a month and a half ago | (#47835799)

With my own children, I used cloth diapers, and washed 3 dozen diapers twice a week. I had my children very close together, so I had two in diapers most of the time. And before I get any of these "popping out babies" cracks, it wasn't my idea. Marital rape does exist, and is not any more pleasant than any other variety.

Cloth Diapers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833435)

Or support your local cloth diaper service.
www.greenspringdiapers.com

Re:Cloth Diapers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833527)

That would be great, except they never offer them in adult sizes. I prefer cloth, but not having my own washing machine and not owning a motor vehicle makes it very difficult.

Mushrooms are the future... (2)

ali.khalil (2497312) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833529)

Fungi based solutions like this really need more good press. For those interested here's a video from TED Talks of Paul Stamets giving a presentation on using Oyster Mushrooms to decompose diesel and other peptroleum waste among some other amazing uses of other types of fungi. Paul Stamets: 6 ways mushrooms can save the world - http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_... [ted.com]

Diaper Math (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833893)

There's kind of a weird history between the EPA and disposable diapers; this discussion on SW152c [nearta.com] (PDF warning) gives some pretty interesting information on how some of those numbers were tabulated.

centuries to break down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833915)

they end up in landfill where they'll take centuries to break down

They seem to decompose pretty quickly in wet Walmart parking lots... Just saying.

Re:centuries to break down? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834835)

Things buried in landfills break down slower. Kind of makes the whole idea of having landfills seem silly, but it's true.

Shiitake mushrooms (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47833919)

n/t

Ay, where's the rub (1)

tinkerton (199273) | about a month and a half ago | (#47833953)

It's nice to have technology to better dispose of diapers, but it should not be used as an alternative to tackling the main problem, which is that babies now wear diapers over longer and longer periods. The main reason for this is interfering with biofeedback. The better the diaper the less feedback the baby gets so the less it is inclined to change its behavior.

The best way to reduce spent diapers is to reintroduce a form of biofeedback. An irritation. An annoyance. But of course that would interfere with the gains of Proctor and Gamble.

If I might propose an environmental regulation, it would be about the minimum allowed amount of negative biofeedback in pampers.
In other words, from a certain age on it would not be allowed to make them too good.

Re:Ay, where's the rub (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47837417)

...babies now wear diapers over longer and longer periods. The main reason for this is interfering with biofeedback. The better the diaper the less feedback the baby gets so the less it is inclined to change its behavior.

The best way to reduce spent diapers is to reintroduce a form of biofeedback. An irritation. An annoyance.

As I recall, the "diapers" for older children are not as absorbant, just for that reason. (to introduce feedback) In our case, my son had intestinal issues when he was young, which delayed his being fully trained. So the pull-ups were appreciated as they captured the issuance, rather than it winding up on the floor.

I bet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47834219)

They taste like shit.

The stoners ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about a month and a half ago | (#47834701)

... will just skip the mushrooms [wikipedia.org] and smoke the diapers.

I call baby shot on those numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47835609)

My daughter

Year one
6x30x12 = 2160
Year two
4x30x12 = 1440
Year 3
Potty trained but even assuming another full year of 1500 diapers it still falls far short of 8000

this explains alot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47836599)

I always wondered why me dealers house smelled like shit!

-5 Gross (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a month and a half ago | (#47838275)

How come there is no "gross" mod category? That's a gross oversight.

8000 diapers? What, do they wear them till 10y? (1)

TheRealLifeboy (1712856) | about a month and a half ago | (#47842593)

3 per day for 3 years = 3285. Then, if they still have to wear them at night, it's 1095 for the next three years. How on earth do you get to 8000?

Just incase someone questions my qualifications: We have raised 4 kids. None of them are used for growing mushrooms now.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?