Environmental Impact of Ink

[henrico]

What concerns me the most about certain statements here is that a few believe that the quantities of ink are insignificant individually. However, we aren't alone. In a city of several million inhabitants, the amount of ink becomes more significant and when combined with other "insignificant" pollutants, the total discharge to the environment is cause for concern.

 

We have a lot of learning to do.

 

Henrico

[mstone]

What concerns me the most about certain statements here is that a few believe that the quantities of ink are insignificant individually. However, we aren't alone. In a city of several million inhabitants, the amount of ink becomes more significant and when combined with other "insignificant" pollutants, the total discharge to the environment is cause for concern.

I'd be far more concerned about the "significant" pollutants. Please refer back to the part about ethylene glycol not bioaccumulating, and about it biodegrading. This is really just not something to lose sleep over. What concerns me is that people get wrapped up in worrying about everything instead of focusing concern where it will do the most good.

[Shok THX]

The story referred to in the link above says it is ball pens that need and use the ethylene glycol not fountain pens.

 

I for one do not wish to make the OP feel like I am attacking him. It is good to question! I apologize if my response seemed as a personal attack.

 

However, I do agree wholeheartedly with mstone. There is a lot of "feel good environmentalism" going on nowadays that completely fails to fix the real problems and often at great cost (which itself can increase the damage to the environment). Whenever someone claiming to be all for saving the environment claims there is no debate, one should look very hard at the money and politics involved and insist on fair and open debate.

 

If the ink had ethylene glycol in it, dumping it on the ground would likely not hurt the water table. It would risk the greater danger of ethylene glycol which would be a bird or animal drinking it.

 

Yes, we have a lot of learning to do. Just don't assume that those teaching know what they are talking about or do not have some other motive.

[henrico]

I'd be far more concerned about the "significant" pollutants. Please refer back to the part about ethylene glycol not bioaccumulating, and about it biodegrading. This is really just not something to lose sleep over. What concerns me is that people get wrapped up in worrying about everything instead of focusing concern where it will do the most good.

 

Well, mstone, there isn't much in my life that causes me to lose sleep. People who tend to scoff at the smallest of environmental impacts cause me concern.

 

Please continue to flush your ink down your sink if you think it is good for us. Sleep well.

 

Henrico

 

[DirtyDog]

The story referred to in the link above says it is ball pens that need and use the ethylene glycol not fountain pens.

 

I for one do not wish to make the OP feel like I am attacking him. It is good to question! I apologize if my response seemed as a personal attack.

 

However, I do agree wholeheartedly with mstone. There is a lot of "feel good environmentalism" going on nowadays that completely fails to fix the real problems and often at great cost (which itself can increase the damage to the environment). Whenever someone claiming to be all for saving the environment claims there is no debate, one should look very hard at the money and politics involved and insist on fair and open debate.

 

If the ink had ethylene glycol in it, dumping it on the ground would likely not hurt the water table. It would risk the greater danger of ethylene glycol which would be a bird or animal drinking it.

 

Yes, we have a lot of learning to do. Just don't assume that those teaching know what they are talking about or do not have some other motive.

 

 

Thanks for your comments regarding the article. I think that if you read the article closely (at least this was my understanding), the author of the article is saying that inks for ballpoint pens have about 20 times more Ethelyn glycol than other inks, which would imply fountain pen inks (last sentence of the second paragraph). I may be wrong on my understanding of the article.

 

It would be a nice to have somebody with a background in chemistry either confirm or deny whether there is in fact Ethelyn glycol in fountain pen ink. I had read this on previous posts but can't seem to locate them at the moment.

[RevAaron]

I'd be far more concerned about the "significant" pollutants. Please refer back to the part about ethylene glycol not bioaccumulating, and about it biodegrading. This is really just not something to lose sleep over. What concerns me is that people get wrapped up in worrying about everything instead of focusing concern where it will do the most good.

 

I completely agree.

 

mstone is a medical doctor IIRC, and is obviously versed in chemistry. I've had my fair share of chemistry as well. There's nothing a chemist could say that'd decide this, unless she was willing to dedicate significant time and resources (GC) to determine this. From a chemistry perspective, it would make far more sense to use propylene glycol or glycerine as a humecant and lubricant in ink.

 

Well, mstone, there isn't much in my life that causes me to lose sleep. People who tend to scoff at the smallest of environmental impacts cause me concern. Please continue to flush your ink down your sink if you think it is good for us. Sleep well.

 

Rational dissent isn't personal attack. The only comments close to personal attack in this thread are PMS's comment and the one I quoted.

 

It isn't a matter of what's good for us or what's bad for us; it's a matter of the degree. The impact of flushing ink down the drain is so insignificantly small that it's moot.

 

If I ever have to go to the hospital to receive emergency treatment for a gunshot wound, I hope the guy doesn't stop to diagnose and treat me for acne because of a few pimples.

 

The environmental impact of the production of a single fountain pen or single computer mouse far exceeds that of a city of millions flushing their pens.

 

I'm a utilitarian ecologist, perhaps you are a romantic. We all have to make our choices. I try to make mine to achieve the most good. If you feel enviro-friendly for keeping a few picoliters of propylene glycol from biograding into harmless organic compounds, good for you.

 

Please continue to drive your car, buy press board furniture, use a computer, use electricity if you think they're good for us. Sleep well.

 

I did find a really interesting patent when googling about for information on this topic... I wonder if such a pen will be made?

 

EDIT: removed most of post; it isn't worth it.

Edited February 15, 2009 by RevAaron

[pmsalty]

My comment were not a personal attack. They were a reflection on how absurd the whole train of this type of questioning is, in my opinion. Obviously some people do not like any contrarian beliefs or critical comments against certain prevailing politically correct attitudes. I recycle plastic and dispose of oil and hazardous materials in a responsible manner. It is apparent that some people do not possess common sense. I will leave it at that!

PMS

[Moondrop]

Thanks for your comments regarding the article. I think that if you read the article closely (at least this was my understanding), the author of the article is saying that inks for ballpoint pens have about 20 times more Ethelyn glycol than other inks, which would imply fountain pen inks (last sentence of the second paragraph). I may be wrong on my understanding of the article.

 

It would be a nice to have somebody with a background in chemistry either confirm or deny whether there is in fact Ethelyn glycol in fountain pen ink. I had read this on previous posts but can't seem to locate them at the moment.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding that article now, but I thought it said that ball pens use 20 times more pigment, not ethylene glycol, which it says is used in ball pens rather than distilled water in order to make the ink viscous.

[DirtyDog]

Thanks for your comments regarding the article. I think that if you read the article closely (at least this was my understanding), the author of the article is saying that inks for ballpoint pens have about 20 times more Ethelyn glycol than other inks, which would imply fountain pen inks (last sentence of the second paragraph). I may be wrong on my understanding of the article.

 

It would be a nice to have somebody with a background in chemistry either confirm or deny whether there is in fact Ethelyn glycol in fountain pen ink. I had read this on previous posts but can't seem to locate them at the moment.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding that article now, but I thought it said that ball pens use 20 times more pigment, not ethylene glycol, which it says is used in ball pens rather than distilled water in order to make the ink viscous.

 

 

Yes, upon taking another look at the article, your reading of the article is correct.

[DirtyDog]

For those who had doubts regarding the Ethelyn glycol content of ink, I am posting the following link to the thread I just found where it is in fact confirmed that ink does have Ehtelyn glycol as one of its ingredients.

 

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/in...showtopic=92089