4 ms·

Sloppy all around. With a difference in annual deaths of 5.4 -- no thousand, no million, just 5.4 -- we're looking at a natural margin of error that cannot be a

Sloppy all around. With a difference in annual deaths of 5.4 -- no thousand, no million, just 5.4 -- we're looking at a natural margin of error that cannot be accounted for without a lot more rigorous study. As this article points out, most grocers switched from plastic to paper bags, which makes the original study authors' statement of it being an immediate and visible effect on infection rate suspicious. Then the author of this "article" says the bag ban should be repealed because people won't wash their reusable bags… then she calls the bag ban a movement of the nanny state… because nanny states never protect people from their basic lack of sanitary practices? What a confused, badly reported, mess.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
logn 14y ago
I thought the points after the nanny-state argument were more convincing, but you didn't mention them: "-- Single-use bags are not the problem. In 2011, they represented 0.13 percent of California's total waste stream. "-- According to the British Environment Agency, consumers have to reuse a cloth bag 131 times to present lesser global warming impact than conventional bags." So at my rate of shopping a bag would need to last 2-3 years to have any net benefit for the environment. And all of that effort to put a maximum dent in .13% of the waste total. If people would just buy what they eat instead of throwing out 20% of their food, we'd have a much greener grocery system.
roc 14y ago
> "then she calls the bag ban a movement of the nanny state" There are a few (helpful) signals that people send, when they've made an emotional decision and are merely trying to justify it after-the-fact. Using emotionally-charged cliches and strawmen ("nanny state") is a large flashing sign of that type. You really shouldn't expect such a position to have any logical or philosophical consistency. Nor should you expect it to be receptive to data. If one of their pet justifications is refuted, the conclusion will remain iron-clad; they'll simply fish around for a new justification.
- ahoyhere 14y ago
  Agreed. I didn't expect anything, merely warning other people not to waste their time.
3327 14y ago
Very poorly written article.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

logn 14y ago

I thought the points after the nanny-state argument were more convincing, but you didn't mention them: "-- Single-use bags are not the problem. In 2011, they represented 0.13 percent of California's total waste stream. "-- According to the British Environment Agency, consumers have to reuse a cloth bag 131 times to present lesser global warming impact than conventional bags." So at my rate of shopping a bag would need to last 2-3 years to have any net benefit for the environment. And all of that effort to put a maximum dent in .13% of the waste total. If people would just buy what they eat instead of throwing out 20% of their food, we'd have a much greener grocery system.

roc 14y ago

> "then she calls the bag ban a movement of the nanny state" There are a few (helpful) signals that people send, when they've made an emotional decision and are merely trying to justify it after-the-fact. Using emotionally-charged cliches and strawmen ("nanny state") is a large flashing sign of that type. You really shouldn't expect such a position to have any logical or philosophical consistency. Nor should you expect it to be receptive to data. If one of their pet justifications is refuted, the conclusion will remain iron-clad; they'll simply fish around for a new justification.

ahoyhere 14y ago
Agreed. I didn't expect anything, merely warning other people not to waste their time.

3327 14y ago

Very poorly written article.