[HN Gopher] The afterlife of used hotel soap
___________________________________________________________________
The afterlife of used hotel soap
Author : Anon84
Score : 228 points
Date : 2022-04-24 11:12 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thehustle.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (thehustle.co)
| lozenge wrote:
| Flagged for title
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Was the title different from the article when you flagged?
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Recycling partially used soap is a good idea. Making sure
| everyone around the world has access to soap is certainly super
| important.
|
| There's really no reason US recycled soap needs to be _the soap_
| that is sent to (eg) Africa, shipped over oceans. Doesn 't (eg)
| Africa have it's own soap production facilities? But I guess
| American consumers would be unwilling to use recycled soap? Or
| just the neat connection between the soap collected in one place
| and delivered to those poor unfortunates overseas is what's
| necessary to get funding and other support? Nobody wants to fund
| just paying for soap in (say) Africa or just recycling soap in
| the US, I guess.
|
| Causing "60%+ reduction in the number of children who die from
| diarrheal diseases each year" -- is a pretty stunning claim.
| Looking closer... I guess they're simply saying that children
| ding of such diseases had dropped by 60% from 1990 to 2020, not
| that they alone are responsible for that? Just that they've
| "helped" to some unknown extent? I bet most readers didn't catch
| that. That seems a bit dishonest actually. Still, even the 60%
| reduction in such deaths over 20 years alone is pretty great and
| I hadn't known about it! (I believe this is one of the leading
| causes of death in man parts of the world -- or used to be?). I
| suspect this particular effort had a pretty minimal contribution
| to those numbers.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| > There's really no reason US recycled soap needs to be the
| soap that is sent to (eg) Africa, shipped over oceans. Doesn't
| (eg) Africa have it's own soap production facilities?
|
| The article mentions several target areas that are under civil
| war and natural catastrophe conditions, where soap production
| might be collapsed. Syria, for example, was renowned for their
| Aleppo soap, whose recipe was allegedly over a thousand years
| old, and whose original production facilities were in one of
| the most embattled locations in fights between Western Forces
| and the so-called Islamic State (Syrian refugees have started
| making that soap again in their exile, mostly in Turkey). I'd
| wager soap production in Haiti also was impacted.
|
| I once was in the "don't send them goods, send them money so
| they can buy local goods and help their economy" camp. Then I
| experienced the high levels of corruption in these countries,
| and how money easily disappeared. It's hard and unprofitable to
| make a truckload of soap disappear, unless the local warlord
| has some kind of soapy-water fetish.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I apologize if this just comes off as "jaded old man", but I
| have gotten warier as I've gotten older of the real harms of
| first world countries dumping all this "aid" on the third world
| and calling it charity. It's not hard to see how tons of free
| food, 2nd hand clothing, and even things like recycled soap
| could undercut any native producers in these third world
| countries, making them perpetually dependent on aid.
| kiliantics wrote:
| Yeah, it would be better if instead the first world countries
| stopped destabilising governments and stealing natural
| resources in the third world. They might have a decent chance
| at developing independently then.
| interpenetrate wrote:
| Bingo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Europe_Underdevelop
| ed_Afri...
| [deleted]
| zelon88 wrote:
| I can't stop thinking about this because on surface it sounds
| reasonable, but there's something off about the logic.
|
| So don't offer aid because it will stop capital investment.
| But there is no capital to invest because people spend their
| days trying to stay alive rather than obtaining capital.
|
| So the logic is flawed. You want to promote investment in a
| place with nothing to invest by not investing in that place.
|
| But furthermore, you want to do it in the name of fairness.
| You want to give Africa the same market opportunity that
| exists in America. That logic is also flawed, because there
| is no opportunity in Africa. So you're just letting companies
| with preexisting status hoarde all the opportunity.
| easytiger wrote:
| > So the logic is flawed. You want to promote investment in
| a place with nothing to invest by not investing in that
| place.
|
| Why do you think they don't have anything to invest?
| zelon88 wrote:
| Because the concept of capital was already created
| elsewhere in the world and now they have to obtain
| something that they never had to begin with.
|
| How do you compete with something you didn't know existed
| until it showed up on your beaches and started stealing
| people?
| orangepurple wrote:
| How did European countries originally create the capital to
| invest?
| barry-cotter wrote:
| Very, very slowly. The Little Divergence, where Western
| Europe started to grow faster than any region had ever
| done before in a sustained way, started in the 1300s. It
| was the 1800s before the Great Divergence[1] happened and
| it became obvious that the West was doing something new
| in human history, sustained economic growth large enough
| to outpace population growth, that could be sustained.
|
| Europe generated the capital to invest very, very slowly.
| The joy of foreign direct investment is in but having to
| spend centuries saving up.
|
| [1] ACCOUNTING FOR THE GREAT DIVERGENCE Stephen
| Broadberry
|
| http://www.ehes.org/ehes2015/papers/Broadberry.pdf
| zelon88 wrote:
| Seriously?
|
| It's easy when you're the first one in a non-globalized
| world where you literally create the capital by yourself,
| for yourself, and then spend it on yourself.
|
| But trying to start an economy in Africa while competing
| with the pre-existing economy of the rest of the world...
| How is that the same thing?
| interpenetrate wrote:
| Primitive Accumulation: https://www.marxists.org/archive/
| marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm (see ch. 26-33)
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| There is a huge difference between investing in the
| productive capacity of a country, and dumping cheap/free
| goods.
|
| If you look at countries that _have_ successfully
| transitioned from 2nd /3rd world countries to 1st world
| economies, despite what "free market" boosters would have
| you think, nearly all of the started out with a huge amount
| of protectionism, so that domestic producers could improve
| their capacity without getting decimated by (initially)
| more advanced foreign competitors. South Korea is a great
| example of this, and of course China - while China is
| famous for its _exports_ , China makes it notoriously
| difficult for foreign firms to compete in the country,
| often putting out the tantalizing notion of a huge market,
| but then stealing trade secrets and putting their thumb
| heavily on the scale in favor of domestic companies.
| [deleted]
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| You can offer aid/investment in a different way that builds
| up local capacity instead of dependence. Which isn't always
| easy or straightforward, but the first step is the
| intention.
|
| It will often be less beneficial for the fortunes of the
| "developed world" based institutions behind the
| philanthropy though, which is why the unconsidered default
| is often in the other direction (even without actual
| malicious intent which sometimes exists too), and it takes
| extra intention and commitment and willingness to sacrifice
| some self-interest.
| mrmattyboy wrote:
| So what about something like:
|
| * US charity that recycles US-hotel used soap
|
| * The recycled soap is resold in US as a charitable item
|
| * Profits from recycled soap sales are used to help fund/grow
| 3rd world soap manufacturers, or to help them lower the cost
| to make it, or subsidise the cost to more available to
| citizens of their country
|
| I see your point and, I know it seems a little roundabout,
| but could this solve the issue?
| DocTomoe wrote:
| Depends on whether you want the people to have soap, or
| their local strongman to have a soap-money-financed golden
| AK47.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I think it would be worth a try!
| dotancohen wrote:
| That dependency was a large part of Nestle's strategy in
| providing baby formulae in Africa. They would supply each new
| mother with - if I'm not mistaken - one month or three
| month's worth of formulae. Just enough so that she would stop
| lactating, but require them to now purchase many month's
| worth of formulae at prices that they really could not
| afford.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| Excellent podcast ep about it here:
|
| https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-
| bastards-29236...
| mayankkaizen wrote:
| Holy shit! I didn't know about that. If true, this is pure
| evil. Any source for further reading?
|
| Edit - never mind. I have just gone through 2 articles and
| now my blood is boiling.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| What imperialism and neo-colonialism controlled by
| european-descended cultures have done to exploit the rest
| of the world is so terrible that it almost sounds like
| science fiction, and we in the countries on the taking
| end mostly manage to avoid knowing about it. It is
| ongoing.
| wahern wrote:
| Nestle used the same marketing techniques in _every_
| country. In the United States _today_ approx. 70% of
| babies are fed entirely or partially using formula. If
| that number surprises you, then maybe that 's a hint to
| check your privilege.
|
| Don't forget that one of the major exports of "European
| cultures"--including European-educated people from
| elsewhere--is manufactured outrage.
|
| Making a buck off of poor people is hardly unique to
| European culture.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Oh no, it's certainly not unique to European culture. The
| rich of Europe, and of other settler-colonies set up by
| Europe like the USA, have just been the most successful
| at it for the past few hundred years, including at
| extracting profit from most other parts of the planet to
| the benefit of the European (and European-
| founded/dominated) parts. phenomenally successful.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| It's because those countries don't protect themselves
| from foreign predatory selling. Developed countries have
| all sorts of restrictions on what their own citizens can
| import, what can be sold locally, even what free gifts
| they can accept, to prevent prevent that sort of
| exploitation. But the common feature of poor countries is
| that they're bad at self-governing, so they're kind of at
| the mercy of everyone else. What can other people do
| about that? Regime change? That's been tried a lot and
| doesn't work.
|
| I know this sounds cold, but blaming what foreigners do
| on them is kind of fruitless. There are so many of them
| waiting to exploit anyone. It's like blaming foreign
| hackers for hacking your computers or even blaming the
| weather for blowing down your fence. Yes, it's
| technically their fault, but you're never going to
| eliminate those outside forces so you'd better improve
| your own security.
|
| Not sure why you singled out the ethnicity of the people
| in those foreign countries since China does it too now.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I know you already declared it "fruitless" but it's worth
| looking into the decades that the USA and other countries
| spent using all the political, economic, and military
| force they could to prevent these countries from
| protecting themselves from foreign predatory selling,
| it's probably part of the picture.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| FWIW there were widespread, decades-long boycotts of
| Nestle due to their baby formula marketing:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
| anamax wrote:
| Hmm.
|
| W1 uses 1/N of the free formula and sells the remainder to
| W2-N. Next month, she's still lactating AND has enough
| money to buy 1/N for N-1 months.
|
| Note that the prices in this scheme are independent of
| Nestle's prices.
|
| However, high Nestle prices are a big incentive for someone
| to be W0.
| ttfkam wrote:
| Not just in Africa. There was a huge ad campaign in the US
| a few decades ago implying that Enfamil and Similac were
| healthier options than breast feeding. This was pushed
| especially hard in economically depressed areas that could
| least afford it.
|
| Not altogether unlike the ad campaigns convincing folks
| that (free) water with a meal was vaguely wrong. "By they
| way," they said, "we've got some special brown water with a
| fukton of added sugar and CO2 for sale instead!"
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > This was pushed especially hard in economically
| depressed areas that could least afford it.
|
| An interesting choice for a company trying to maximize
| profits.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| That is seriously disgusting. They're sacrificing a baby's
| health for profit. Do they have no limits?
| golergka wrote:
| Why do you put blame on the company who offers the choice
| to the mother and not on her for making that choice? If
| the mother in question would choose not to consume the
| product, the mere existence of the offer wouldn't make
| her life worse in any way.
| WaxProlix wrote:
| Probably the vast misinformation campaign explicitly
| targeting vulnerable and undereducated people claiming
| that Nestle formula was superior to breast milk and would
| give their children a better shot at success in life.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Because they're straight up lying when they say it's
| better than breast feeding. Encouraging mothers to breast
| feed is hard enough as it is, we really don't need some
| idiotic company spending millions in deceptive marketing
| designed to get them to stop lactating and become
| dependent on their products. This caliber of sociopathy
| is unacceptable no matter how they spin it.
| lbrito wrote:
| Wow, this is Peak HN 2022.
|
| Why blame England for the Opium Wars? Couldn't the
| Chinese just take less opium?
|
| Why blame big pharma for the opioid epidemic? Couldn't
| people not take opioids?
|
| Why blame cigarette advertisement for lung cancer? Can't
| people not smoke?
| chrischen wrote:
| The worst is that a country like China does regular business
| with them (for better or for worse) and we (US) criticize
| them for political reasons with no regard to whether it's
| good for Africa or not, just whether it's good for us
| (politically that is--to criticize Chinese influence/power).
| zelon88 wrote:
| On the other side of the coin then you would have African
| STEM working on trying to find enough recycled soap. That
| would probably be problematic because the ratio of supply
| from hospitality can't touch the backlog of demand caused by
| poverty. So you provide them the soap and that's one less
| obstacle standing in their way as they tackle more actionable
| problems.
| budu3 wrote:
| In fact West African countries have a centuries old method of
| making soap from locally available material.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_black_soap
| Scoundreller wrote:
| While the base (ash in this case) can be locally produced,
| africa as a continent isn't a big edible oil
| producer/exporter, and that's usually the expensive part in
| soapmaking.
|
| And one could argue that plant ash isn't the most sustainable
| source of base in making soap.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| I picked up on the 60% reduction point too. He got the idea in
| 2008 and looking at the chart you see the trend is constant
| over the last 30 years, so we can't see any impact from their
| work in the plot. That's not to say they haven't helped to
| improve hygiene, but maybe hygiene would have been improved by
| other means (local soap, other NGOs, general sanitation)
| Vinnl wrote:
| > Still, even the 60% reduction in such deaths over 20 years
| alone is pretty great and I hadn't known about it!
|
| If you're interested about lots more statistics about how
| things have majorly improved in fairly recent history in lots
| of areas, albeit with lots of caveats about how there's
| certainly still more work to do, I can highly recommend Hans
| Rosling's book _Factfulness_.
| [deleted]
| dnhz wrote:
| 84% of guests use the TV? I thought hotels were for visiting
| somewhere.
| pc86 wrote:
| What a strange, backward take-away. This 84% will include
| people who watch 15 minutes of TV before going to bed, or
| people who put on the news while they're getting ready in the
| morning. Not sure why you would take it to assume people are
| watching 12 hours of TV on vacation.
| sp332 wrote:
| So 4 people doing all the work by hand could do 500 bars a day.
| But now it takes 20,000 volunteers and they've made 68,000,000
| bars, so only about 6 days worth of work per volunteer total?
| pc86 wrote:
| Most volunteers are probably doing an hour or two at a time,
| and probably slower/worse than this guy's four close friends
| that were grinding through it. I would think some volunteers
| are doing other stuff as well.
| robjan wrote:
| The volunteers are usually half day corporate team building
| events. The company pays a fee and the staff provide
| "voluntary service", photos are then taken and shared on
| social media.
| rrosen326 wrote:
| I think this is such a clever use of capitalism for positive
| purpose. I've worked with Eco-Soap Bank
| (https://ecosoapbank.org/) mentioned in the article. So great.
| ck2 wrote:
| The bleaching process kills every known bacteria and virus right?
|
| Because people are nasty AF, guaranteed STDs at a minimum on some
| of those.
|
| As long as that process can never fail, this all sounds good,
| just amazed the hotels actually pay for it, good on them.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| The heat required to just start the melting (~60C) will kill
| those. Viruses very easily before that temperature, and after a
| few minutes for bacteria.
|
| Fungal spores won't be killed, but that's usually less of a
| concern.
| air7 wrote:
| It's an interesting read, but the actual answer to what is the
| afterlife of hotel soap is a land fill...
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I've always taken it home. Funny since I always assumed each
| hotel was just melting it down and recasting them.
| yftsui wrote:
| I started doing the same after seeing room keepers just throw
| them to the trash back in 2019. They lasts way longer than I
| expected - I haven't bought any soap for over 2 years despite
| my travel is very limited(due to the pandemic), but I still
| have some remaining. Pandemic is over and traveling is starting
| again, I guess I'll never able to use up all of them.
| iso1210 wrote:
| > 86% of guests who stay at a hotel for 1-2 nights use it
|
| 14% of guests do not use soap?
|
| I can understand people bringing their own stuff for the shower,
| but 1 in 7 people bring their own soap for washing their hands?!
|
| But them I'm amazed people use TVs too. I stayed in a hotel about
| 50 times in the last year, I've never turned on the TV.
|
| I'm currently staying in a hotel in Paris, room service are
| replacing the bar of soap every day. It's ridiculous.
| Helitioo wrote:
| I'm more surprised by how many use the closet
| unstatusthequo wrote:
| If you have a suit or dress, the closet is a requirement to
| hang clothes so they aren't folded and get wrinkles. Also,
| the iron is nice for a crisp shirt and slacks.
| bombcar wrote:
| I hang most everything in the bathroom so the steam from
| the shower helps remove wrinkles.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| I bring my own soap for hand washing because hotel soap does
| bad things to my skin.
| kzrdude wrote:
| The TV might be useful for Netflix. I found Netflix already
| logged-in by a previous guest in the hotel I last stayed in...
| just shows that it is used.
| 8b16380d wrote:
| It seems realistic that 14% of people would have their own
| soap.
| iso1210 wrote:
| Do 1 in 7 people use their own soap in office restrooms?
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| I've considered it. Most office soap smells so bad. With
| the exception of Microsoft's soap. It's been close to ten
| years since I worked there, but I can still remember how
| good their hand soap smelled.
| Tao331 wrote:
| I can't remember the last time I used an office restroom.
| tamaharbor wrote:
| Your prostate (if you are a male) is apparently still the
| correct size.
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Office restrooms have a completely different use case -
| they're not trying to turn over occupancy as quickly and
| cheaply as possible. And none of the office restrooms I've
| been in have ever used bar soap. And I have input into my
| office building's selection - I get to complain to the
| office manager who can then complain to the building
| management. The result is, typically, some hypoallergenic
| liquid or foam that doesn't over-dry most people's skin, so
| they have little reason to bring their own.
| bombcar wrote:
| In small offices if someone has a preference on soap they
| can usually get the office to stock theirs or at least
| bring it in.
|
| And based on what I've seen, the numbers are about right.
|
| Add in those who basically never use the hotel room but to
| sleep and you can get the one in seven.
| ratww wrote:
| I bring my own soap for the shower, as the one provided by
| hotels often doesn't really clean well, neither smells really
| good. It does double-duty as soap for the hands, since it's
| higher quality than whatever most hotels have.
| joshmlewis wrote:
| My wife packs our own soaps for shower but we use the hotel
| soap for hand washing.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| I especially turn on the tv in foreign countries...gives a vibe
| for the place.
| dazc wrote:
| Usally a shocking vibe as to how many ads people will
| tolerate.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Provides an interesting insight into a show's viewership
| and who's winning the auction ad budgets.
|
| This is even more fun if you can't understand anything.
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| Hotel soap is gross because hotels invariably have super-soft
| water. Bar soap leaves a nasty film all over one's skin. I
| always bring my own shampoo and soap dispenser due to this.
| mikequinlan wrote:
| If the soap is leaving a film, the water is hard not soft.
| bombcar wrote:
| A crust is hard water, slipperiness you can't get rid of is
| soft.
|
| https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/why-does-it-take-so-long-rinse-
| soa...
| seaman1921 wrote:
| You stayed 50 times in hotels in 1 year and you think the new
| soaps are the problem. That is funny. Compare your own carbon
| footprint to a person from 3rd world country if you want to
| talk about ridiculous.
| kotaKat wrote:
| If I'm staying at a hotel for multiple days, I like to stop at
| a nearby store and get full size toiletries. (Maybe even some
| bubble bath or something to unwind, and some snacks to save on
| using the hotel market.)
|
| I'd rather use that then try to fumble with the often tiny
| bottles of soap that are either hard to pry the cap open on or
| barely have enough soap in the bottle for a single day. Plus I
| can grab a cheap loofah, too.
| refactor_master wrote:
| Well the TVs are for ants. At that distance my phone provides
| more view per distance. And Netflix.
| dazc wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if most of those 14% of people who
| don't use hotel soap for washing their hands are people who
| don't wash their hands anywhere else either.
| pc86 wrote:
| I had a week long business trip where I was literally only in
| the hotel long enough to sleep before getting up, showering,
| and leaving for the day, so I never used any of the hand soap.
| I did go through several of the travel sized shampoo and body
| washes they had in the shower, though.
| Symbiote wrote:
| I avoid waste, so if I haven't brought my own toiletries I'll
| use the shower gel to wash my hands.
|
| It's essentially the same stuff.
| edge17 wrote:
| Now do it with ketchup packets.
| Tao331 wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if restaurants found a way. I've seen
| folks go to great lengths to "marry" half-empty ketchup
| bottles.
| aaron695 wrote:
| Soap costs fuck all to produce.
|
| And can be done in country furthering local industry.
|
| Less than $2 a kg - https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/new-
| arrival-soap-bath...
|
| Soap is so cheap it's not about people needing donations, it's
| about people needing training in using it... and clean water.
|
| But that's HN it's all about feeling good about using the word
| recycling. Soap is not even a landfill issue. It just degrades to
| nothing. But we better burn fuel so we get to say recycling.
| mayankkaizen wrote:
| I hate to admit that I always 'steal' those little soap. And the
| reason I give myself that they are going to throw it anyway so
| why not keep it?
| smileysteve wrote:
| Trash pickup is too cheap / Recycling too expensive and this is a
| great case;
|
| The remainder soap creates a valuable commodity at a small cost
| of the original, but hotels (or their toiletry suppliers) aren't
| solving this on their own (a potential revenue stream).
|
| How do we connect the dots?
|
| I say this as US jurisdictions are cutting (resident paid)
| recycling programs because of the high cost of sorting plastic;
| while the US experiences cardboard shortages, metal shortages (as
| old vehicles waste yards) - in the midst of climate change pacts.
|
| OR, as few jurisdictions implement composting programs where 40%
| of landfill waste is likely compostable. (and there is a market
| for curbside compost companies, where consumers are paying $40/mo
| though the output is very valuable)
| 7952 wrote:
| Surely the solution is liquid products in larger squirty
| containers.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Recycling being too expensive can also be a sign that it isn't
| worth it.
|
| This only works because it's subsidized from all ends: the
| hotels are subsidizing it to get some PR out of it, and 20k
| volunteers are subsidizing it with free labor (according to the
| article).
|
| Soap is cheap. I can buy ~400 g of soap for a dollar, at retail
| prices. This covers the entire supply chain to produce it, get
| it to the store, and sell it to me, and the price isn't just
| the price, it's also a rough indicator for the effort and to
| some extent the environmental impact.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if the shipping, the production
| facilities, the fuel for the volunteers commuting etc. made
| this a net-negative (compared to throwing out the leftovers and
| making new soap at industrial scale) not just economically, but
| also for the environment.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Yeah, if they are transporting this stuff _halfway around the
| world?_ I can 't believe this is a net win.
| bombcar wrote:
| Recycling was a scam invented to pretend plastic is acceptable.
|
| We should straight up give up on much of recycling and go back
| to focusing on the recycling that matters and is worthwhile,
| and begin to heap scorn on plastics the same way we have done
| on styrofoam (remember when every big Mac came in it's own
| styrofoam container?).
| syshum wrote:
| I am not replacing my paper wrapped plastic straw for a
| plastic wrapped paper straw......
|
| For styrofoam, It was not shame, or environmentalism that
| caused that change it is price and convenience.
|
| styrofoam sucked for most of the uses in fast food. Plastic
| and Plastic coated paper, was cheaper, more durable, and
| preferred by most customers.
|
| Want to stop plastic, invent something better. Something that
| does not break down in liquid or grease...
| mgdlbp wrote:
| Styrofoam almost perfectly demonstrates the issues of
| recyclability and suitability for food containers that also
| apply to plastics in general:
|
| (Note that what we generically call _styrofoam_ is expanded
| polystyrene (XPS), which isn 't quite the same material as
| the original 'Styrofoam' brand of _extruded_ polystyrene
| (EPS) insulation board. The commonality is the polymer they
| 're made from, polystyrene (PS), which is also used as
| "normal" moulded plastic.)
|
| Virtually no polystyrene foam is recycled (and most municipal
| recycling rejects PS entirely). This is because of the same
| economic unviability of recycling that plagues most plastics,
| just greatly exacerbated by the low density of foams.
| Similarly, the issue with Styrofoam food containers is much
| more immediate than microplastics in general: PS releases its
| toxic monomer styrene when heated, which just about makes
| coffee cups and fast food containers its _worst_ possible use
| case. But the low price and insulative properties of the foam
| render it popular still in jurisdictions where it 's legal.
|
| Also: Rigid polystyrene is used in food containers, too
| (e.g., yoghurt containers and disposable plastic cups). And
| another popular polymer, ABS, also contains styrene (hence
| the recommendation for ventilation when 3D printing it).
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| This is easy to fix if the political will is there. In
| Norway yoghurt containers, etc., are made of polypropylene
| not polystyrene
| Reason077 wrote:
| > _" Virtually no polystyrene foam is recycled"_
|
| Sadly this doesn't seem stop people from jamming up our
| building's recycling bins with tons of the stuff. Or IKEA,
| Samsung, and their ilk from producing tons of it to use in
| product packaging. Horrible stuff!
| gernb wrote:
| Isn't that changing?
|
| https://www.intelligentliving.co/ikea-mushroom-based-
| packagi...
| Reason077 wrote:
| Hopefully - I might be being a bit harsh on IKEA
| specifically. There's certainly a lot of "IKEA-like
| furniture" PS foam packaging out there that I often see
| overflowing the recycling.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Most of the stuff I have bought from Ikea seem to be
| mostly carboard packaging. Which isn't actually that
| horrible for recycling when it is uncontaminated like
| stuff used for flatpack furniture is.
| midasuni wrote:
| I haven't had an ikea box with polystyrene for years
| smileysteve wrote:
| Though it depends on the target. Polystyrene requires less
| water and energy that cardboard or injection molded
| plastics; and protects goods better. (Egg transportation
| has been studied)
|
| On eggs: Polystyrene is also very reusable and recyclable
| in sorted recycling (aka taking back to the grocery store)
| Reason077 wrote:
| > _" PS releases its toxic monomer styrene when heated,
| which just about makes coffee cups and fast food containers
| its worst possible use case."_
|
| Better or worse than paper-based cups and food packaging
| laced with PFAS ("forever" fluorochemicals) to make them
| waterproof and greaseproof?
| smileysteve wrote:
| > Recycling was a scam
|
| But this generalization is incorrect. Aluminum, cardboard,
| steel are easy to transport and recycle. Glass is too.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I think that plastic recycling wasn't an invented scam,
| rather a bad generalization of previous recycling systems.
| Rags, metal, paper, glass can be reasonably recycled or at
| least processed into something else (rags into paper) and
| this has been done for centuries. It must have felt natural
| to add yet another material category to this list.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Plastic recycling is worse than a scam - the process actually
| releases more carbon (mostly co2) into the atmosphere than
| creating a new plastic item. I've heard that it was widely
| implemented to "promote awareness". And the worst part?
| People who drive gasoline vehicles to bring their plastic
| recyclables to the recycling center.
| PolygonSheep wrote:
| My question for plastic recycling is: if it's so difficult
| to recycle why not just landfill it? It can't create
| microplastics, harm wildlife, or float around in the ocean
| if it's buried inland under feet of dirt.
|
| I mean yeah it would be much better if we didn't use it at
| all but I don't think that genie is going back in the
| bottle anytime soon.
| bombcar wrote:
| Landfilling or incinerating are some of the best uses,
| but they sound bad.
|
| Better would be to replace as many places where it's used
| as possible with other materials.
| gruez wrote:
| >My question for plastic recycling is: if it's so
| difficult to recycle why not just landfill it?
|
| Probably because of public unease about sustainability,
| specifically running out of landfills.
|
| >GONZALEZ: There were all these stats coming out at the
| time that showed that the number of landfills in America
| was plummeting. Landfills were closing, and people kept
| citing these stats in stories about the garbage barge.
|
| >KINNAMAN: And so people put it all together, and in
| their minds, the conclusion was that the United States is
| running out of landfill space. The United States was full
| - that we couldn't store any more.
|
| Of course, that was never going to happen.
|
| >And even hardcore environmentalists reluctantly agree
| that, yeah, we have a lot of space left. But people
| thought we were running out of space, and that was what
| mattered.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Or reuse it.
|
| I'm right now drinking from a bottle that's been filled
| dozens of times. And the best feature of a reused bottle
| is that it has less aromatics to leach out than the
| newly-manufactured bottles have - they've already leached
| out.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| I don't know... I think over time plastic tends to become
| brittle due to UV exposure, temperature cycling,
| degradation of plasticizers. etc. So I would expect it to
| release more and more microplastics.
| gernb wrote:
| Are plastic cutting boards a net win (less bacteria?) or
| a net loss (adding shavings of plastic to cooking)?
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| Cutting Boards of Plastic and Wood Contaminated
| Experimentally with Bacteria
| (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31113021/)
|
| "Bacteria inoculated onto Plastic blocks were readily
| recovered for minutes to hours and would multiply if held
| overnight. Recoveries from wooden blocks were generally
| less than those from plastic blocks, regardless of new or
| used status; differences increased with holding time."
|
| So plastic gives you _more_ bacteria, _and_ plastic
| shavings. Stick to wood.
| jffry wrote:
| > So plastic gives you more bacteria, and plastic
| shavings. Stick to wood.
|
| I think that's a little ambitious of a conclusion given
| that the study you cited didn't (at least as described in
| the abstract) involve cleaning.
|
| My thick HDPE boards can survive the dishwasher's high
| temperature cycle without warping, and the HDPE is better
| for my knives.
|
| I do cut down on washing by using the same cutting board
| for produce and meats, but raw meat is always the last
| thing on the board before cleaning.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Note that the lignin in the wood is horrible for the
| cutting edge. Knives on wood need far more frequent
| sharpening. But in my opinion it is a good trade off.
|
| Note to use solid wood. I've seen cutting blocks of wood
| strips glued together - impossible to clean and easy to
| warp. All the disadvantages of every type of cutting
| board in one overpriced scrap ))
| PolygonSheep wrote:
| Reuse is good but it's also kinda hard in two ways I've
| found: you will accumulate too many "reusable" plastic
| items (one or two coke bottles you reuse is fine, but
| what are you going to do with twenty?), and also some are
| tricky to reuse (how do I reuse my candy bar wrapper or
| shrink wrap my item came packaged in?)
| [deleted]
| analog31 wrote:
| Soap is artificially cheap too, because it's a byproduct of
| meat production. If I wanted to think ecologically about soap,
| I'd think about its source.
|
| I use hotel soap, but would have utterly no problem bringing a
| tiny amount of body wash with me. I already use liquid body
| wash at home because I live in a region with hard water, and
| soap turns into soap scum.
| jhenkens wrote:
| Never thought of liquid soap as being less cleaning due to
| soap scum. Interesting. I used Dr Bronners Peppermint for
| scalp-to-toes cleansing for nearly a decade, but switched to
| bar soap around the start of the pandemic when I moved to
| somewhere where it wasn't easy to get (either in store, or
| stuff shipped to the house, pretty remote, snowy location
| without delivery access during the winter months).
|
| I now live in a much more urban area, but am trying to reduce
| unnecessary plastic consumption - not to the extent of being
| "trash-free", but instead in the sense of trying to support
| alternatives, so that it becomes more standard/easy to
| access. There are stores with bulk dispensers of a variety of
| cleaning products near me. I may consider switching back for
| my home shower usage.
| analog31 wrote:
| You used to be able to get bar "soap" that was based on
| detergent, not soap. Detergent is identified by things like
| sodium lauryl sulfate etc. Remember "you're not really
| clean until you're Zest-fully clean." because Zest was made
| from detergent.
|
| Soap is listed in the ingredients as being based on tallow
| or lard. When my family moved to a hard-water region, I
| looked at ingredient labels, and discovered that you can't
| buy detergent based "soap" any more -- even Zest is based
| on soap. This could be due to a glut of those materials
| triggered by rising meat production.
|
| So we switched to liquid hand and body wash, which is
| detergent based. It's not as luxurious as soap, but I'm the
| one who cleans the bathrooms, so I make the rules.
|
| Soap scum is calcium stearate, which is not soluble in
| water, and remarkably difficult to remove from the inside
| of bathtubs and showers. And your water softener has to
| work remarkably well to completely eliminate soap scum.
| jdswain wrote:
| Some people have problems with sodium lauryl sulfate. In
| toothpaste it gives me mouth ulcers, and in soap I get
| skin irritation. It's quite hard to find SLS free
| toothpaste, or even shampoo, but it could be worth trying
| if you have unexplained skin irritation. I haven't had
| one ulcer since swapping toothpaste and before that I was
| getting them all the time.
| gruez wrote:
| >Soap is artificially cheap too, because it's a byproduct of
| meat production
|
| source? I know it might traditionally be made from animal
| fats, but the cheap soaps seem to use SLS, which wikipedia
| describes as "derived from palm kernel oil or coconut oil"
| [deleted]
| danachow wrote:
| SLS is a detergent not a soap.
|
| Look at the ingredients in a soap like ivory or zest (which
| used to be a detergent until 2008), or Irish spring (which
| I like, but is definitely a cheap soap) - the first one
| will be sodium palmitate or tallowate.
| gruez wrote:
| > SLS is a detergent not a soap.
|
| That's technically correct but colloquially those are
| interchangeable, eg. dish "soap", or liquid hand "soap".
|
| >Look at the ingredients in a soap like ivory or zest
| (which used to be a detergent until 2008), or Irish
| spring (which I like, but is definitely a cheap soap) -
| the first one will be sodium palmitate or tallowate.
|
| After checking the ingredient lists of body washes/hand
| soaps on amazon, this seems to be limited to solid soaps.
| I suppose it still means the parent post's point is true
| (ie. solid soaps are artificially cheaper because of
| animal fat), but in the context of this story it doesn't
| matter much. Liquid soaps are more popular than solid
| soaps[1], except in low income countries where they're
| more popular because they're cheaper[2]. In my experience
| liquid soaps are at least as popular as solid soaps in
| hotels, so it's safe to assume they're willing to fork
| over money for non-subsidized soap (ie. liquid soaps) and
| the animal subsidy isn't something that's driving hotel
| soap waste.
|
| [1] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/40-billion-
| worldwid...
|
| [2] https://www.reportlinker.com/p05916773/UAE-Soap-
| Market-By-Fo...
| bradgranath wrote:
| Jesus this is gross. If you like the soap so much sell it back
| the hotels.
| xcambar wrote:
| somehow your comment reminded me of Fight Club.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| This is an ad for a startup, what really happens to used hotel
| soap is it goes into a landfill (which isn't surprising). A
| startup is trying to recycle it.
| kzrdude wrote:
| While it is an "ad", I don't think it's fair to call it a
| startup since their work has already become established, and
| they've been running since 2009, for example they say they
| produced 68 million bars of soap.
| gruez wrote:
| Ah yes, the good old submarine.
|
| http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
| Gimpei wrote:
| Missing from this story is any evidence that the soap they're
| providing is actually helping. It would be nice to see some sort
| of RCT where free soap was compared with the benefit from selling
| the recycled soap and then just giving people the proceeds.
| thom wrote:
| Ahem, are my wife and I the only ones who just keep all the
| toiletries from hotels and use them at home or on future
| holidays?
| comprev wrote:
| Found Ross from Friends!
| davrosthedalek wrote:
| But the batteries!
| ck45 wrote:
| No, you are not the only ones. When we are on a multiple
| destination trip (our standard way of travelling), I take the
| opened soap to the next accomodation(s) and use it before
| opening any new ones.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Those tiny hotel soaps are just the peak of the iceberg.
|
| My SO used to work seasonally in a hostel in Venice. People leave
| _a lot_ of half-used shower gel bottles, soaps, makeup products
| etc.
|
| It got to a point where the staff just put all the products which
| were safe to use(laundry detergent, shower gels, spray deodorant,
| shaving foam) in an unoccupied room referred to as "the Rossmann"
| (popular drugstore chain in some European countries) from which
| everyone in the know was at liberty to take as much as they
| wished.
|
| A fraction of the goods were originally found unopened.
| nicbou wrote:
| I frequently contribute to the Rossman. I made it up to 4 weeks
| without forgetting my shampoo bottle, but that's my record.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Minimum wage hospitality workers appreciate your
| contribution.
|
| Considering that due to a loophole(qualifying work spanning
| less than three months as a "business trip") they were paid
| the _Polish_ , not Italian minimum wage, those EUR2 worth of
| shower gel went a long way.
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| I used to travel every week for work. I became obvious that
| hotels should just use liquid soap instead of bars. Many indeed
| do this now, including large refillable dispensers for shampoo,
| conditioner and body wash/gel. With the amount saved, we can
| probably provide lots of the same to poor countries too.
| virtuabhi wrote:
| "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" -- in the order of priority. Why select
| Recycle when alternatives are simple and viable?
| As the largest hotel soap recycler in the world, Clean the World
| has helped lead to a 60%+ reduction in the number of children who
| die from diarrheal diseases each year.
|
| Wow, casually overclaiming their ~0% impact. No doubt these folks
| are getting all the grants and we are discussing them here.
| shannifin wrote:
| I remember seeing this story on Youtube a couple years ago...
| https://youtu.be/49oZt8Sl-JA
| Jiro wrote:
| >That means that, in normal times, hotels go through ~3.3m bars
| of soap every day.
|
| ...
|
| >Every year, it has been estimated that the hospitality industry
| generates ~440B pounds of solid waste -- much of it soap and
| bottled amenities.
|
| Innumeracy.
|
| Based on these numbers, and assuming a bar of hotel soap is 2
| ounces, that means that bars of soap are 3.3 * 365 / 1000
| (millions in a billion) / 8 / 440 or about 0.03 percent of the
| solid waste generated by hotels. "Much of it" indeed.
| caymanjim wrote:
| This is a poor use of resources. Sending anything but money to
| places in need is just wasteful. This soap effort is not
| efficient. The expense of collecting the soap, refining it in a
| garage (including cost of the equipment), and delivering it to
| the recipients is almost certainly vastly more than if they'd
| just sent cash and bought brand new soap local to the recipients.
| And that's not even factoring in the labor of the people doing
| it. This is another feel-good measure that is economically
| stupid, and whose primary purpose is to make the volunteers feel
| good about themselves. That's fine, if that's what they want to
| do with their time and money. But no one should help them by
| donating. It's far better to donate your cash to people that make
| efficient use of it.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| > whose primary purpose is to make the volunteers feel good
| about themselves.
|
| Or to give jobs to people employed by the organization doing
| all this. :(
|
| I'm not saying that's the conscious goal of the organizers or
| staff, who I'm sure are well-intentioned. But if you were an
| imaginary "alien anthropologist" looking at the actual outcomes
| of so much "philanthropy" in our world and assuming that the
| outcomes represent the purpose, i think you might determine
| that the main point of it all is to provide professional jobs
| to people in already relatively wealthy communities. :(
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| You're missing the whole environmental concern. All this soap
| gets discarded into a landfill. Not all of the thousands of
| different hotel bar soap brands are biodegradable. Certainly
| not the ones with plastic packaging.
| caymanjim wrote:
| What does packaging have to do with it? The unopened bars are
| simply left for the next guest. The packaging from the opened
| ones is already headed to the landfill. This doesn't change
| that equation at all. The reduction of soap bars headed to
| the landfill is infinitesimally small, and there's an
| environmental cost to their inefficient small-scale facility
| and inefficient delivery mechanism to ship their product to
| end users. It may be that there's a tiny little net positive
| environmental effect, but I seriously doubt it. And
| environmental benefits are an after-the-fact justification,
| not one of the primary motivators.
|
| This is feel-good whitewashing. There are better things to
| do. Stop the waste at the source with refillable dispensers.
| Mandate better packaging or eliminate the packaging entirely.
|
| The problem with things like this is that they make people
| feel better, make it seem as though something is being done,
| but don't actually do anything good, and for the cost, are
| worse than the alternatives. Manufacturers don't have to
| change packaging and hotels don't have to reduce waste,
| because for pennies on the dollar, they can point at a
| program like this, get a PR win, and claim they're doing
| something. It's not a viable business model, it's not in the
| best interest of those who ultimately benefit, but it makes
| "us" feel better and it makes the hotels look better.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| >"Seipler did some back-of-the-napkin math and realized
| that millions of bars of perfectly salvageable soap were
| going to waste.".
|
| >"Its biggest partner, Hilton, which signed on all of its
| worldwide locations in 2019, has contributed 14.5m bars of
| soap in less than 3 years."
|
| >"hotels go through ~3.3m bars of soap every day."
|
| That sounds like a primary environmental concern and a
| pretty large one at that.
|
| >"Stop the waste at the source with refillable dispensers.
| Mandate better packaging or eliminate the packaging
| entirely"
|
| The hotel industry has virtually no interest into
| committing to any these changes because they generate so
| little PR value. No one's going to Embassy Suites because
| they care about the environment. This solution is at the
| very least a passive opportunity for companies like Hilton,
| to reduce waste.
| [deleted]
| gruez wrote:
| >Not all of the thousands of different hotel bar soap brands
| are biodegradable
|
| And? Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Are we going to be
| running out of landfill space any time soon?
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > All this soap gets discarded into a landfill.
|
| Commercial entities have to pay for their waste to be taken
| away where I am so they make at least some feeble attempts at
| reducing waste. Just rack up the price of landfill until no
| one will pay to use it or just forbid landfill for pretty
| much everything and you will solve that problem and generate
| business opportunities for new solutions.
| gruez wrote:
| >you will solve that problem and generate business
| opportunities for new solutions.
|
| You might "solve" the problem of landfills being used, at
| the expense of additional resources (eg. labor, energy,
| capital) being devoted to doing the same stuff (ie. getting
| rid of waste). I'm skeptical the trade-off is worth it,
| considering that soap isn't super toxic, landfills are
| lined anyways, and that we're not exactly running out of
| landfill space any time soon.
| fortran77 wrote:
| I can't help but react with "eeew!" You never really know where
| that bar of soap has been, regardless of how well they "scrape"
| the outer surface.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > 86% of guests who stay at a hotel for 1-2 nights use it,
| handily outranking other popular offerings like the in-room TV
| (84%)...
|
| This is extremely nit-picky, but I wouldn't use the word
| "handily" here. "Slightly" is a better word for a 2% difference.
| The next most popular option was at 81%.
|
| Another nit-pick is the part where they say hotels throw away
| "~440B pounds of solid waste -- much of it soap and bottled
| amenities". How much of it?
|
| Well, if hotels go through ~3.3m bars of soap every day, and
| hotel soaps seem to be about .5 oz each, that's 0.03125 pounds *
| 3.3M * 365 = ~38M pounds a year. That's considerably less than 1%
| of the total waste thrown away by hotels. I would describe that
| as "not much of the waste thrown away by hotels".
|
| That doesn't mean it's not a worthy cause to reduce 38 million
| pounds of waste a year, or to provide hygiene products to people
| who need them. But, they might as well not exaggerate or
| overstate the effect as much as they appear to be doing in this
| article.
| cebert wrote:
| I've noticed an increasing number of hotels I've stayed at have
| shower pumps for soap, conditioner, and shampoo. These pumps are
| locked so that they cannot be easily tampered with. This solution
| seems much more environmentally friendly. It has the additional
| benefit that you needn't worry about running out.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| But what if some madman pumps out all the soap, then carefully
| fills it back with sulphuric acid using a syringe?
| gniv wrote:
| I remember staying at a (modest) hotel in Netherlands 20+ years
| ago and seeing this for the first time and thinking what a
| brilliantly pragmatic idea. It's amazing and sad that it didn't
| catch on everywhere.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Ibis Budget has these in some buildings along with built-in
| hair dryers.
| Reason077 wrote:
| I stay at a lot of hotels and I'd say it's becoming very
| common now days, at least in the UK and Europe. Pretty much
| the norm in all low-to-midrange chains, as well as many
| independents and even some of the more fancy chains (although
| I stay in those a lot less often!). There are some surprising
| exceptions, however: Hilton and Hilton Doubletree still do
| silly little plastic bottles!
| jjice wrote:
| Also been seeing this more in the US. It's a welcome
| change, both for the environment, and a pump is easier to
| use than travel sized bottles.
|
| I used to pack my own bottles with refillable Nalgene carry
| on ones, but now that there are the pumps, it reduces
| travel clutter a bit.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's a status thing and it takes time for public perception
| to change. The hotels have been careful to explain the
| environmental and carbon benefits everytime they make a
| change like this - even ten years ago "pump soap" would be
| considered something you find in a large public restroom,
| not a fancy hotel.
|
| Even if the hotels are using it as an excuse to save money;
| good on them. Senseless waste is silly.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| > explain the environmental and carbon benefits
|
| I'm extremely allergic to seeing these "for the
| environment" claims, because it's usually obvious they're
| doing it mainly to save costs. I have no issue with them
| doing a sensible thing, but I consider lying rude.
| jeromegv wrote:
| Both can be true. If environmental changes are also
| financially beneficial, that's the fastest way to drive
| change. When it's more expensive to be eco-friendly,
| takes a much longer time.
| 7952 wrote:
| So much better. I despise those little bottles that never have
| enough and then are untidy when empty.
| yuuu wrote:
| What about people who pee on or in them?
| jon-wood wrote:
| You can't get into the pump, so it's at least impossible to
| pee in them. I guess you _could_ pee on them, but it would be
| a pretty high shot, and honestly, why would you?
| dehrmann wrote:
| It's possible to have pre-filled, sealed bags with pumps.
| Almost like box wine.
| yardstick wrote:
| How are they refilled?
|
| Could someone just pee into a cup and from there put into
| the container?
| moron4hire wrote:
| Because shitheads exist?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| How do you know there isn't a shithead at the soap
| factory?
| moron4hire wrote:
| That wasn't the question
| yardstick wrote:
| Maybe not the question but their answer is a good one.
| Spend all the time worrying about one attack vector when
| there's dozens of other places along the supply chain
| where just as nasty or worse things can happen.
| dehrmann wrote:
| You could almost as easily tamper with a shampoo bottle and
| leave it make it look unused.
| deschutes wrote:
| In that case, the soap is the least of your problems.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| At the last hotel I stayed at, peeing on them would be
| somewhat difficult, though not impossible, especially if you
| have a penis. Peeing in them would be very difficult indeed
| as you simply cannot open the top easily.
|
| One solution for body soap is basically a handsoap dispenser
| with body soap in it - you simply aren't peeing in the bag
| and there aren't many places to pee into.
|
| On top of it all, someone had to show ID to get access to the
| hotel room, and you are can very well get charged for such
| things.
| asperous wrote:
| Yes, it reminds me of the "Americans designed a pen that can be
| used in space, Russians just used pencil" joke.
|
| Even though that joke is wrong... graphite breaks off and is a
| fire hazard... in this case using dispensers seem to eliminate
| this problem and the massive apparatus used to support it.
|
| Maybe Hilton guests just really like their bar soap? How many
| people don't bring their own anyway?
| jesperlang wrote:
| Stepping out of the house I always bring my own unscented
| soap. Perfume allergy is a reality for thousands of people.
| If I accidentally wash my hands with scented soap I got 20-30
| minutes of itchy nose and wheezing before the smell wears off
| :/
| code_duck wrote:
| Same here! Accidentally using most commercial restroom soap
| is almost an emergency for me. It's even a problem to
| travel in a car with someone else who has washed their
| hands with it recently. If I get that type of fragrance on
| my hands I have to wash it off with unscented soap as soon
| as possible.
| chooseaname wrote:
| I bring my own because scent is an irritant.
| spacepenisland wrote:
| I had thought the Russians used grease pencils rather than
| graphite, yet again inverting common knowledge tropes.
|
| Is that not the case?
| gwbas1c wrote:
| > How many people don't bring their own anyway?
|
| I never bring my own, because there's always good soap at
| every hotel. I used to have a soap caddy when I was in
| college and it got so gross, and was occasionally lost, that
| I just don't want to deal with it.
|
| I'm picky about shampoo and conditioner, so I bring my own in
| travel containers.
| nicbou wrote:
| I always bring my own because there's never good soap. I
| wear a motorcycle helmet all day for weeks, so I need The
| Good Shampoo.
| syshum wrote:
| I just use a 3n1 product that is body wash, shampoo, and
| conditioner all in one...
|
| Makes like simple, keep in a 3 oz squeeze bottle for
| airport security theater even though i do not really fly
| anymore.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-24 23:00 UTC)