Some years ago I read an article that more and more hospitals (in Germany) are getting rid of their sterilisation facilities, because single use tools can be ordered in bulk and the facilities + personnel are costly. Profit-driven healthcare is such a nightmare for the environment.
It’s not like sterilizing is free either, it uses a lot of heat energy which in most places means you’re burning methane on the grid. That also releases co2 emissions.
That’s the thing about plastic people seem to ignore. The carbon is in the plastic, not released into the atmosphere as co2. Which is why plastic isn’t that bad for global warming purposes. It’s an area where generic environmentalism can be at odds with someone that is solely focused on climate change.
Assuming the trash isn’t incinerated, which it probably will be in the case of biohazards. It should be taxed at extraction, because there is no way to accurately track the full life cycle of the plastic. The tax can be refunded at the time of recycling, assuming it gets recycled, which the vast majority of plastic isn’t. At least currently.
Can confirm, I worked as a vendor for both OR facilities and various laboratories. It’s something I’ve been thinking of for a while, actually. Single use plastics are so important to both areas of healthcare I don’t see how we can reduce their usage. It’s one of the few cases I know where not using plastic has a risk of actually killing a number of people due to inferior quality or cross contamination.
Plastic that can break down and compost with high heat and moisture and time is basically the goal for pollution concerns. But it’s naturally resistant so making it being able to break down when you want but still be durable and waterproof isn’t easy and will probably never be as cheap.
deleted by creator
Some years ago I read an article that more and more hospitals (in Germany) are getting rid of their sterilisation facilities, because single use tools can be ordered in bulk and the facilities + personnel are costly. Profit-driven healthcare is such a nightmare for the environment.
It’s not like sterilizing is free either, it uses a lot of heat energy which in most places means you’re burning methane on the grid. That also releases co2 emissions.
Would be interesting to see which uses more energy. Implementing a carbon tax would surface those costs pretty quickly.
That’s the thing about plastic people seem to ignore. The carbon is in the plastic, not released into the atmosphere as co2. Which is why plastic isn’t that bad for global warming purposes. It’s an area where generic environmentalism can be at odds with someone that is solely focused on climate change.
Assuming the trash isn’t incinerated, which it probably will be in the case of biohazards. It should be taxed at extraction, because there is no way to accurately track the full life cycle of the plastic. The tax can be refunded at the time of recycling, assuming it gets recycled, which the vast majority of plastic isn’t. At least currently.
Can confirm, I worked as a vendor for both OR facilities and various laboratories. It’s something I’ve been thinking of for a while, actually. Single use plastics are so important to both areas of healthcare I don’t see how we can reduce their usage. It’s one of the few cases I know where not using plastic has a risk of actually killing a number of people due to inferior quality or cross contamination.
Plastic that can break down and compost with high heat and moisture and time is basically the goal for pollution concerns. But it’s naturally resistant so making it being able to break down when you want but still be durable and waterproof isn’t easy and will probably never be as cheap.
You can say all that, and still it is true that PFAS has absolutely no reason to be in every needle and no patient asked for that.