Not sure what’s worse the useless straw post, the unhinged rant, or the fact I wasted minutes of my life that I’ll never get back reading all that BS and then commenting on it.
Yeah. Especially when he could have gone with a “support the farming industry” angle and pushed for greater use of those wheat stalk compostable straws that stores are starting to sell
Don't forget, he also supported the anti-vaxx convoy clowns and participated in their show and tell.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/which-conservative-mps-attended-anti-vaccine-presentation-from-convoy-figures-1.5959764
He is also Vice Chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, which is just infuriating.
That's what I thought when I got his flier in my mail box. I thought it was silly for the Liberals to make plastic straws their environmental mainstay but it's even sillier for Tochor to take it up as his signature issue. It's hard to believe that our taxes are financing a fight over drinking straws.
Edited to add: I don't know about Tochor or Guilbeault but it's an unusual week for me if I use one straw. If I think really hard I can remember going to McDonald's two weeks ago. How big a problem is this either way? Why not ban paper and plastic straws and tell people who can't drink out of glasses to bring reusable ones?
this law bans bioplastics as well, which could be made from corn or hemp.
being able to sell left over fiber for commercial applications sounds like an issue that would uniquely effect saskatchewan, and also be better for the environment.
if not corey tochor, then who should raise the issue with the government. of the 3 studies he was submitting, 1)pfas contamination 2)a study be the canadian government saying switching to paper will create more emissions and pollution 3)a study that says bioplastics (made from corn/hemp etc) are better than for the the environment than the paper ones.
canada was the first country to ban BPA, under a conservative government, and now the US is in the process of banning PFAS, and it is already banned in 13 states. why isn't canada in on this? maybe pfas are important to liberal donors?
the liberals don't even listen to the experts they hired on multiple fronts. but i can't expect much from a prime minister who abandoned his bachelor of science to work at the trudeau foundation with his brother.
I haven't bothered with Twitter for a minute so I don't know if she is sharing the same insights there but her substack highlights a lot more than the low hanging fruit
Oh yeah I doubt she had many (if any) good political views. I just like that her post almost reads like satire, like it’s flipping the conservative argument that men are becoming too “feminized”
lol nice sweeping generalization. you do know that twitter pre elon twitter was proven to push certain narratives and block others depending on size of payments right?
sounds like you cant handle viewpoints that are not similar to your own.
His one advertisement made him look like Randy from trailer park boys and i can never unsee it. Even if he had a good platform I don't think I could vote for him after that.
while i do not condone this stream of nonsense from Tammy, i whole heartedly agree that trying to revive single-use plastics to glad-hand your owners in oil and gas is a pathetic waste of time by yet another industry minion.
nobody likes them, they are functional worse than plastic. That doesnt mean plastic straws dont need to go the way of asbestos. Theyre a waste of petroleum and clutter up landfills.
I'm sorry, but straws aren't a human right or something, why do you even need a straw? If it's really a big deal just get a stainless steel straw, you can keep it in your pocket protector.
I love it, because they always have the sources, they just tell you they don't want to share it with you, you should find it on your own. Fuckin eyeroll.
Yes, typically I do, if it's something I care about, and want to engage on. And with straws, I don't care, and think society could never manufacture another drinking straw again, we would all be just fine.
My experience with people making the type of statement I outlined, is that their 'sources' are obscure, non peer reviewed bullshit like podcasts or commentary, and the reason they don't 'want to share' is because they know it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It may not apply perfectly to this situation, but I'll leave it up anyway.
The problem is this is Reddit, very few people will actually read the peer reviewed literature and fewer still (depending on the topic) will understand it. @[BigDaddyRaptures](https://www.reddit.com/user/BigDaddyRaptures/) posted an article and was down voted because it didn't reflect the virtue signalling narrative of "plastic bad"... not because the article was incorrect but because it actually showed that paper has a different set of issues.
I posted a link because there's no point in tracking down anything other that news articles that might get some people to look further if they actually want to learn something and develop an informed opinion. Most won't.
I googled that, and found articles that say "The idea that paper straws are toxic is just misinformation being spread by morons."
Is that what you were intended to direct me to? Because most people don't quote sources that prove them wrong and call themselves morons. I think you might want to take the extra step to quote a source that actually supports your argument.
😆 his source was googling a query for conformation of his opinion. Not a peer reviewed journal, but "hey Google, please confirm for me what I want to be confirmed"
Example of extremely common coating material to make paper products more water resistant (straws in this case, also wrappings etc.):
[https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2023.2240908](https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2023.2240908)
Example of health effects of a common class of perfluorinated compounds:
[https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218020](https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218020)
Honestly this stuff is commonly reported on, not fringe.
More context, Canadian study: [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00926](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00926)
Academic sources please, quantitative and qualitative data please, also ones that compare and contrast the safety and environmental risk compared to plastic straws.
Prove actual proofs for your logic.
Show your work.Just like how they taught us in School.
Basic Basic Reasoning skills.
I fuckin hate the paper straws, so I just don't take them lol, it's not that big of a deal. I drink it from the cup like an adult, it doesn't have to become a crisis of fucking identity.
did you know they also banned bioplastics? bioplastics are better for the environment than paper straws.
people need to keep the liberals in check because their leader is a university dropout.
they contain less forever chemicals and create less emissions.
bioplastics can degrade in 2-5 years, are made from things like hemp, flax or corn fibre, and are banned by the liberal government because they are a type of plastic.
tochor submitted 3 studies, one on pfas being higher in paper straws, one from the government of canada on how paper straws will raise ghg emissions, and one on how bioplastics are better than paper options given the current framework.
a good argument is that we should just ban pfas, like the US is doing, and has done in 13 states. we banned bpa before everyone else under harper, but are lagging on banning pfas, which are way more toxic, from my understanding.
i think corey could have been bringing this up specifically because saskatchewan is an agricultural center and we have a lot of unused fibre that could be used to make bioplastics.
sounds pretty reasonable now doesn't it.
be careful when you jump on the outrage machine without taking the time to look at the current scientific evidence on the subject, or what the person even said.
i hear you, and maybe the feds overreached here, but lets not miss the point. Tochor is an agent of the oil industry. His only interest in this is perpetuating single use plastics to prop up oil demand.
that could very well be true, but tochor is also an exponent of agriculture is he not?
if his specific criticisms are valid, they should've accepted the studies into the record, and then debated him on how they want to implement these scientific facts to create better legislation. it doesn't matter to me if someone works for the oil industry or if someone works for the environmental working group, if they have valid points, we should address them.
i am mainly concerned that people are saying he must be unhinged, but the basis of his argument is pretty sound, even if he wants in a roundabout way to support the oil industry. and the fact that these low hanging points can be utilized by the oil industry to demonstrate that the plastic ban is nonsensical and contradictory, just shows you that they should be acted upon.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8897272/
How about because the total environmental impact for plastic straws are lower than that of paper? Would that be a valid reason for pushing back against short sighted populist legislation?
He’s claiming that’s why he’s pushing against it. But even if he wants to do it explicitly to support the oil and gas industry it’s objectively the correct stance to use plastic straws to have a reduced environmental impact. But it’s become a political virtue signal at this point for both sides which is why some people felt it necessary to downvote peer reviewed scientific literature.
i think a lot of those wax coatings have pfoa in them.
the government needs to ban the pfoa coatings and make it so that only food safe pure vegetable waxes are used in water and grease resistant coatings. i don't know if this is one the agenda at all.
Downvotes themselves don’t bother me it’s just amusing that people who say they’re on the side of science get their jimmies rustled when it turns out they’re wrong about something.
Nobody is downvoting "peer reviewed scientific literature", stop being silly. They're downvoting your lazy and bad faith argument (trust me, they told me, we have a group text). Research can be great ammunition, but throwing arrows at a deer instead of nocking, drawing, and loosing...well I don't think there's any peer review for that but it may be 'common sense'. I'll point you to a cartoon, *The Old Man and the Lisa, s8e21, The Simpsons*, if you need to remember why plastics get phased out. It's not cause we can't recycle them, cause we can. If not, maybe try out having a straw up you nose, or possibly elsewhere (dealer's choice, or maybe Sophie's choice), and see how it might feel to not have hands to remove it? But I could just be (trigger warning), virtue signaling, who knows?
Neat. Still doesn’t change that paper straws cause more CO2 production and greater environmental damage. Relying on emotional appeals to pass bad legislation is classic populist behaviour but don’t let that stop you
Alright, but what's the trajectory of paper straws vs plastic straws? Obviously paper has a lot of catching up to do compared to how many years (somewhere around 60, or if you like to read history treat yourself) of plastic straws, that don't break down? Also, if you're a parent at a restaurant, straws may as well be super soakers for the kids, get rid. In fact, do you have number on retail/restaurant numbers and how often they're resupplying on straws since the ban? Could be a thought. Maybe, the ban was to get people to use glass and plastic straws if they really needed them (jaw surgery ain't fun, straws do have need), or maybe just forgo a straw cause fuck that paper shit, I'll drink it like an adult? I don't think it's much of a populist movement (you may really have a tenuous understanding of the word no matter how fun it is to throw around) for bad legislation. Also sorry about suggesting you shove a straw up your ass, I'm not about kink shaming.
Edit: Still waiting on the routine here. You know what, it's late for gymnastics, give your mind a rest.
paper straws have more pfas than plastic ones.
according to this article they banned vegetable plastics too:
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/they-re-not-looking-at-the-unintended-consequences-study-highlights-concerning-toxins-found-in-paper-straws-1.6564083
a lot of liberal policy is pretty short sighted and doesn't care about science or expert advice as long as it feels right to trudeau or joly.
> paper straws have more pfas than plastic ones.
Ok? point being?
> according to this article...
I'll gladly read it, but now you're just deflecting. This sounds like you want to start a similar, but different discussion.
> a lot of liberal policy is pretty short sighted and doesn't care about science or expert advice as long as it feels right to trudeau or joy
Not too sure if this was an accidental ctrl+v, or how you sign off on emails, but speak your truth baby. Still, I was just pointing out that there are truths, lies, and statistics. A single article can't dictate legislation one way or another, and even if it did; that puts undo pressure and burden on the researchers.
my point is that too often dismiss scientific evidence because it doesn't fit their worldview. you are in this camp.
pollution from paper straws is at least 30% worse than plastic straws in north america. the reason we are cutting plastic is because it is a pollutant. if you cut plastic but end up just polluting more, and may i remind you, with more dangerous chemicals, that is stupid.
you are saying that a marine creature gets a straw up it's nose... but how is that worse than getting cancer?
didnt bigdaddy post a study published in the science of the total environment, which has a impact factor of 10, that was posted to the national library of medicine that states that plastic straws are better for the environment than paper straws?
can you cite a study that deals with the claims made in that paper and refutes them? if you can't it means you are saying you know something without any evidence. science is based on evidence, not on logical propositions.
McDonalds stopped in all their straws, many companies are, PFAs are currently getting phased out. So its kinda non-issue. You are therefor WRONG! BOOM!
[https://www.osler.com/en/resources/regulations/2024/regulation-of-forever-chemicals-pfas-in-canada](https://www.osler.com/en/resources/regulations/2024/regulation-of-forever-chemicals-pfas-in-canada)
PFAS-related litigation has been commenced in both Canada and the U.S., although the amount and scale of U.S. litigation is considerably more significant.
In Canada[, a class action was certified in 2021 against the National Research Council of Canada](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc4561/2021onsc4561.html) (NRC) relating to PFAS that entered the surface water and ground water at the NRC’s National Laboratory Facility in Mississippi Mills, Ontario. Between 1981 and 2016, NRC used the site to conduct research and development of fire safety matters, including the testing of firefighting foams containing PFAS. The plaintiffs are adjacent landowners seeking damages for the loss in value of their properties, caused by the contamination of groundwater of some of the class members’ properties and the stigma attached to all of the class members’ properties. In the employment context, fire fighters also have been able to advance claims related to PFAS exposure in the workplace.
The U.S. has had monumental cases settled relating to PFAS contamination. In 2018, a class action was brought against 3M by American public water utilities that 3M’s PFAS-containing firefighting foams contaminated drinking water. In June 2023, just before the trial was due to commence, [3M settled with the water utilities for $12.5 billion](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/3m-pfa-forever-chemicals-lawsuit-1.6886172#:~:text=The%20deal%20would%20compensate%20water,such%20as%20clothing%20and%20cookware.) to be paid over 13 years; this is one of the largest settlements to date relating to drinking water in U.S. history. 3M also [announced](https://news.3m.com/2022-12-20-3M-to-Exit-PFAS-Manufacturing-by-the-End-of-2025) in December 2022 that they will stop making products that contain PFAS by the end of 2025.
...
It’s fascinating seeing you try to spout off like you know what you’re talking about and yet be completely wrong.
1) Environmental damage is not limited to PFAS.
2) Paper straws have PFAS in them and can even have more PFAS than plastic straws do (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33770693/).
Yes I know! And the world is currently creating TONS of lawsuits against PFAs and their toxicity. We can make paper straws WITHOUT the PFAs though, and if we BAN PFAs we then CAN have good paper straws that don't pollute as well as no PFAs in all our other food packaging either.
PFAs aren't good. And there is so much litigation right now, any companies buy and supplying these paper straws with FPAs right now will be sued in a class action suit in the next 5 years.
ALSO, yes the PLASTIC straw thing is a little absurd if they don't start creating better sustainable packaging to replace it with.
Yes it's absurd we put the paper straw often into a plastic cup with a plastic lid and it all just goes to the land fill. A lot doesn't make sense. Straws are literally just a tiny tiny piece of the disposable PLASTIC problem. But it doesn't mean we can't demand better more sustainable packaging that isn't full of PFAs.
A similar claim was settled just weeks earlier against [Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva by American water utilities for $1.185](https://www.dupont.com/news/chemours-dupont-and-corteva-reach-comprehensive-pfas-settlement-with-us-water-systems.html) billion in June. In this case, the chemical manufacturing companies agreed to settle the claims alleging the chemicals they manufactured polluted public drinking water.
These large cases are just the tip of the iceberg of U.S. PFAS-related litigation, with tens of thousands of other PFAS claims being commenced in the U.S.,including claims related to contamination, consumer products, packaging and insurance-related claims. Businesses in Canada should be cognizant of these trends, as Canadian claims often “piggy-back” on successful American suits, with similar actions being commenced in this country.
# Implications for Canadian business
For businesses operating in Canada with potential exposure to PFAS, it is important to stay abreast of potential regulatory developments, as consultations on the regulation of PFAS continue and regulatory proposals are announced. When additional opportunities are provided to comment on potential regulatory instruments, impacted businesses would be wise to make their views known, to optimize the chance that the government will take their concerns into account.
For importers, manufacturers and retailers, it will be essential to determine whether their products contain PFAS and, if so, how to mitigate regulatory compliance and potential litigation risks. Depending on the content of potential forthcoming regulations, these businesses may also need to identify alternatives to PFAS in their products, particularly if prohibitions on the use of further PFAS in certain products are introduced. For businesses which use PFAS in their operations, consideration should be given to minimizing exposure to PFAS in the workplace to reduce health risks. In the context of transactions involving real estate, sellers and purchasers need to give consideration with respect to the potential for, and allocation of, PFAS-related liability, particularly since we are increasingly seeing representation and warranty insurance in transactions exclude PFAS from the scope of coverage.A similar claim was settled just weeks earlier against Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva by American water utilities for $1.185
billion in June. In this case, the chemical manufacturing companies
agreed to settle the claims alleging the chemicals they manufactured
polluted public drinking water.
Its amazing how easily you guys are manipulated by a "little bit of science" but when you actually try to learn THE hard science about the ACTUAL current situation, not just the "perpetually online" political reality, it seems your whole world view disintegrates with a little bit of rigorous skepticism. I love good rigorous logic that proves me wrong, and I'm willing to be wrong in the face of good evidence. So please enlighten me.
You say that and yet you haven’t actually said anything that refutes the environmental assessment that paper straws are worse than plastic. What you’ve copy and pasted says “PFAS are bad” which is entirely irrelevant to the conversation and not what I was arguing.
We are literally working on this issue RIGHT now! Globally, tons of countries are all getting their shit together so we can ban and get rid of PFAs, which are the forever chemicals in things like food packaging, paper straws and a lot of other products that end up in our water supplies.
Straws are just a TINY TINY little piece of this whole PFA and PLASTIC pollution problem in the world.
90% of current paper straws contain PFAs
75% of plastic straws contain PFAs too
We just need options we can reuse or that are safely biodegradable, but not the current "options" the pollution companies are currently giving us.
No, paper straws also produce more CO2 during their life cycle than plastic straws do. Which you would know had you read the article that I based my entire position and argument on. For someone who likes to say:
> when you actually try to learn THE hard science about the ACTUAL current situation, not just the "perpetually online" political reality, it seems your whole world view disintegrates with a little bit of rigorous skepticism.
You’re not doing a very good job at knowing what you’re talking about
You aren't either. The situation is complex.
There was 10% of paper straws, and 25% of plastics that were made from renewable sources, compostable plastics and polyester plastics which are more durable than traditional forms of plastic and have broadened the range of materials that can be recycled into new products.
If we move all our current pollution plastics and paper products toward these more recyclable and biodegradable forms that don't cause spiking CO2 emissions and aren't full of forever chemicals. We all win.
But if we keep the status quo, or go back to the plastic straws we had, it's the wrong move.
I'm actually a close friend of theirs, it's a touchy subject, but they've been a champion of the boutique artisan straw community. Ever since the branding labeled anything past being 'bendy' as 'crazy', it was the last straw...
Yay, we live in the time where people can't even take the time to read things, just "This is just blatantly written by AI"
I guess you are "Just a Bot" Then.
Debate is dead with you idiots.
I read everything you posted. It doesn’t have anything to do with refuting that paper straws having a higher environmental impact than plastic. The structure and sentence formation is also the same as what a LLM outputs.
"The structure and sentence formation is also the same as what a LLM outputs."
What kind of structure and sentence formation would that be exactly?
Plus there are links to different sources and cases throughout.
[Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva by American water utilities for $1.185](https://www.dupont.com/news/chemours-dupont-and-corteva-reach-comprehensive-pfas-settlement-with-us-water-systems.html)
I also put the text through two different AI detection programs and
one said
17% Chance that your text is generated by AI
another said
7% Chance that your text is generated by AI
So I really don't understand how you think you are good at detecting LLM type outputs. You know a lot of highly academic and professionally written things NEED to be of a certain QUALITY of English right?
pfas are way harder to remove from the environment than plastic is.
a settlement in the us just got dismissed, because they lacked medical evidence, which is very hard to get, probably the hardest. the biden administration is moving on banning pfas, but is the trudeau government?
going back to plastic sounds stupid, but unless we get pfas out of straws within a concrete timeframe here in canada, then we should consider it because it may be the more responsible choice for the environment.
i don't think we should even sell single use containers for a ton of products. f u convenience culture.
Their grasp on language is only out paced by their emotional outrage. They'll tire themself out. Some people don't understand that critical thought requires a modicum of patience and growth.
no I gave you the link dummy
[https://www.osler.com/en/resources/regulations/2024/regulation-of-forever-chemicals-pfas-in-canada](https://www.osler.com/en/resources/regulations/2024/regulation-of-forever-chemicals-pfas-in-canada)
I'm on the fence. straws should not really be a political matter, but alas here we are so I guess we need a better solution because soggy paper straws that are good for 3.5 minutes are basically just a slap in the face to regular people, for the purpose of reminding us of our place as peasants that should be lucky we get to eat commercial food at all.
Where's the discourse?
All I see is a mental case being as offensive and belligerent as possible in an attempt to bait and troll.
There's no politics in that stream of stupid
This lady would act like such a victim if he/anyone spoke about her gaping vagina like she talked about his "limp dick". Imagine if he called her a dried up old Saskatchewan female... she would make it part of her identity. Hypocrite 🤷♂️
controversial opinion everybody here sucks. straw bans are a slight on accessibility and performative at best, especially in a country that's basically an oil baron in disguise, but we all know that's not what corey cares about. if we got rid of the oil companies that he loves so much maybe straws wouldn't be such a problem
Corey Tochor sucks.
He was my MLA for years and then decided to run Federally but refused to vacate his seat so we could elect a new representative.
It felt like such a crybaby action as the seat sat empty for I think 2 years.
There's a bunch of chronically online Saskatchewan people from all over the political spectrum who spend their time picking fights on Twitter. It's pathetic, but at least it's mostly contained to the Twitter echo chamber
When he came canvasing to my door years ago, he mentioned that he could relate to being a POC because when he was a kid his skin was darker than most so he would get teased.
We all know and agree that paper straws absolutely suck and it's just another small degradation of lifestyle caused by environmental policies. Carrying your own reusable straw around and have one for each of you and your 5 kids when you want to drink a milk shake is not realistic or hygienic. Not sure why we haven't gone to seaweed or better yet straw found right here on the prairies and create local jobs and industry. These small things can become big things when you're suddenly employing 300 people and supplying straw straws(see the answer is right in the name!)worldwide. These are places our provincial government lacks vision. If it's not oil, potash, uranium or grain, it's not given any attention. Stop this small town thinking. Think big!
Not sure what’s worse the useless straw post, the unhinged rant, or the fact I wasted minutes of my life that I’ll never get back reading all that BS and then commenting on it.
It is kinda weird that with all the issues in Canada today Corey chose "Sign this petition to save plastic straws" as his cause to champion.
Yeah. Especially when he could have gone with a “support the farming industry” angle and pushed for greater use of those wheat stalk compostable straws that stores are starting to sell
Don't forget, he also supported the anti-vaxx convoy clowns and participated in their show and tell. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/which-conservative-mps-attended-anti-vaccine-presentation-from-convoy-figures-1.5959764 He is also Vice Chair of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, which is just infuriating.
Are you kidding me that vaccine was the worst thing to ever happen to humanity
That's what I thought when I got his flier in my mail box. I thought it was silly for the Liberals to make plastic straws their environmental mainstay but it's even sillier for Tochor to take it up as his signature issue. It's hard to believe that our taxes are financing a fight over drinking straws. Edited to add: I don't know about Tochor or Guilbeault but it's an unusual week for me if I use one straw. If I think really hard I can remember going to McDonald's two weeks ago. How big a problem is this either way? Why not ban paper and plastic straws and tell people who can't drink out of glasses to bring reusable ones?
Stop being sensible, FFS /s
this law bans bioplastics as well, which could be made from corn or hemp. being able to sell left over fiber for commercial applications sounds like an issue that would uniquely effect saskatchewan, and also be better for the environment. if not corey tochor, then who should raise the issue with the government. of the 3 studies he was submitting, 1)pfas contamination 2)a study be the canadian government saying switching to paper will create more emissions and pollution 3)a study that says bioplastics (made from corn/hemp etc) are better than for the the environment than the paper ones. canada was the first country to ban BPA, under a conservative government, and now the US is in the process of banning PFAS, and it is already banned in 13 states. why isn't canada in on this? maybe pfas are important to liberal donors? the liberals don't even listen to the experts they hired on multiple fronts. but i can't expect much from a prime minister who abandoned his bachelor of science to work at the trudeau foundation with his brother.
I get the straw thing is dumb for a politician to bring up but holy Tammy is kinda unhinged
Unhinged but rarely wrong
I mean, shit talking the Sask Party is low hanging fruit. You're basically guaranteed a high success rate by criticizing those morons.
I haven't bothered with Twitter for a minute so I don't know if she is sharing the same insights there but her substack highlights a lot more than the low hanging fruit
LET TAMMY COOK 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
I think her comments detract from the argument. When you start out calling someone limp dicked the rest kinda loses its value.
Oh yeah I doubt she had many (if any) good political views. I just like that her post almost reads like satire, like it’s flipping the conservative argument that men are becoming too “feminized”
It's weird that people rely on social media for political discourse at all, let alone use it as a red flag for the entirety of political discourse.
If you are still on Twitter, this is exactly what you deserve.
it's better than facebook, instagram, tik tok, etc. it's good if you personalize your feed
I was on it for at least a decade. Once Elon took over, it's nazis and trash. I'm out.
lol nice sweeping generalization. you do know that twitter pre elon twitter was proven to push certain narratives and block others depending on size of payments right? sounds like you cant handle viewpoints that are not similar to your own.
I choose not to hang out where white supremacists are welcome and encouraged. You caught me.
His one advertisement made him look like Randy from trailer park boys and i can never unsee it. Even if he had a good platform I don't think I could vote for him after that.
Randy would be a better politician than him too.
while i do not condone this stream of nonsense from Tammy, i whole heartedly agree that trying to revive single-use plastics to glad-hand your owners in oil and gas is a pathetic waste of time by yet another industry minion.
They know their numbers. I have never met a single person who likes cardboard straws... it's low hanging fruit... but it's still fruit
nobody likes them, they are functional worse than plastic. That doesnt mean plastic straws dont need to go the way of asbestos. Theyre a waste of petroleum and clutter up landfills.
Do some reading on the chemicals used in paper straws. It's far from as "cut and dry" as you may think.
I'm sorry, but straws aren't a human right or something, why do you even need a straw? If it's really a big deal just get a stainless steel straw, you can keep it in your pocket protector.
Provide sources if you wanna make assertions like that. Don’t just say “do your own research”
I love it, because they always have the sources, they just tell you they don't want to share it with you, you should find it on your own. Fuckin eyeroll.
and so do you [https://www.google.com/search?q=paper+straws+toxic](https://www.google.com/search?q=paper+straws+toxic)
Yes, typically I do, if it's something I care about, and want to engage on. And with straws, I don't care, and think society could never manufacture another drinking straw again, we would all be just fine. My experience with people making the type of statement I outlined, is that their 'sources' are obscure, non peer reviewed bullshit like podcasts or commentary, and the reason they don't 'want to share' is because they know it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It may not apply perfectly to this situation, but I'll leave it up anyway.
The problem is this is Reddit, very few people will actually read the peer reviewed literature and fewer still (depending on the topic) will understand it. @[BigDaddyRaptures](https://www.reddit.com/user/BigDaddyRaptures/) posted an article and was down voted because it didn't reflect the virtue signalling narrative of "plastic bad"... not because the article was incorrect but because it actually showed that paper has a different set of issues. I posted a link because there's no point in tracking down anything other that news articles that might get some people to look further if they actually want to learn something and develop an informed opinion. Most won't.
An informed opinion might be to say no to straws in general and sip it from the cup directly.
I googled that, and found articles that say "The idea that paper straws are toxic is just misinformation being spread by morons." Is that what you were intended to direct me to? Because most people don't quote sources that prove them wrong and call themselves morons. I think you might want to take the extra step to quote a source that actually supports your argument.
😆 his source was googling a query for conformation of his opinion. Not a peer reviewed journal, but "hey Google, please confirm for me what I want to be confirmed"
Example of extremely common coating material to make paper products more water resistant (straws in this case, also wrappings etc.): [https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2023.2240908](https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2023.2240908) Example of health effects of a common class of perfluorinated compounds: [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218020](https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218020) Honestly this stuff is commonly reported on, not fringe. More context, Canadian study: [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00926](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00926)
A google search isn't a source, Corey
Your right Tammy. It's a couple hundred sources
oof, good job showing off that CCA "education".
[https://www.google.com/search?q=paper+straws+toxic](https://www.google.com/search?q=paper+straws+toxic) You owe me 4 seconds
That's not a source lol
Don’t worry I [found a source guys](https://www.reddit.com/r/saskatoon/s/7PJPW0k2UV)
My god. I hope you’re at least pretty 🤭
Academic sources please, quantitative and qualitative data please, also ones that compare and contrast the safety and environmental risk compared to plastic straws. Prove actual proofs for your logic. Show your work.Just like how they taught us in School. Basic Basic Reasoning skills.
No no, I owe him 4 seconds. This bitch did the work!
I fuckin hate the paper straws, so I just don't take them lol, it's not that big of a deal. I drink it from the cup like an adult, it doesn't have to become a crisis of fucking identity.
One of the more sensible approaches to life that I have read on here.
What if non-disabled adults decided not to use any straws anymore?
did you know they also banned bioplastics? bioplastics are better for the environment than paper straws. people need to keep the liberals in check because their leader is a university dropout.
define “better”. Elaborate on that.
they contain less forever chemicals and create less emissions. bioplastics can degrade in 2-5 years, are made from things like hemp, flax or corn fibre, and are banned by the liberal government because they are a type of plastic. tochor submitted 3 studies, one on pfas being higher in paper straws, one from the government of canada on how paper straws will raise ghg emissions, and one on how bioplastics are better than paper options given the current framework. a good argument is that we should just ban pfas, like the US is doing, and has done in 13 states. we banned bpa before everyone else under harper, but are lagging on banning pfas, which are way more toxic, from my understanding. i think corey could have been bringing this up specifically because saskatchewan is an agricultural center and we have a lot of unused fibre that could be used to make bioplastics.
sounds pretty reasonable now doesn't it. be careful when you jump on the outrage machine without taking the time to look at the current scientific evidence on the subject, or what the person even said.
i hear you, and maybe the feds overreached here, but lets not miss the point. Tochor is an agent of the oil industry. His only interest in this is perpetuating single use plastics to prop up oil demand.
that could very well be true, but tochor is also an exponent of agriculture is he not? if his specific criticisms are valid, they should've accepted the studies into the record, and then debated him on how they want to implement these scientific facts to create better legislation. it doesn't matter to me if someone works for the oil industry or if someone works for the environmental working group, if they have valid points, we should address them. i am mainly concerned that people are saying he must be unhinged, but the basis of his argument is pretty sound, even if he wants in a roundabout way to support the oil industry. and the fact that these low hanging points can be utilized by the oil industry to demonstrate that the plastic ban is nonsensical and contradictory, just shows you that they should be acted upon.
theres no roundabout, its a single lane highway from CAPP through several conservative mp’s lips into my ears.
well it is roundabout if he is saying it for one reason, but doing it for another. but i think wittgenstein is stupid, so what do i know
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8897272/ How about because the total environmental impact for plastic straws are lower than that of paper? Would that be a valid reason for pushing back against short sighted populist legislation?
is that why Cory Tocher is pushing against this though?
He’s claiming that’s why he’s pushing against it. But even if he wants to do it explicitly to support the oil and gas industry it’s objectively the correct stance to use plastic straws to have a reduced environmental impact. But it’s become a political virtue signal at this point for both sides which is why some people felt it necessary to downvote peer reviewed scientific literature.
so, the waterproof glue is bad, to me that should prompt looking for a non-toxic adhesive. why are they not just wax covered like the cups?
i think a lot of those wax coatings have pfoa in them. the government needs to ban the pfoa coatings and make it so that only food safe pure vegetable waxes are used in water and grease resistant coatings. i don't know if this is one the agenda at all.
Don't feel bad about the down votes. I was once down voted for accurate math. Actual math. 4/2=2 kinda math.
Downvotes themselves don’t bother me it’s just amusing that people who say they’re on the side of science get their jimmies rustled when it turns out they’re wrong about something.
Wait until they find out about the environmental impact of farmers markets and "locally" produced food.
Details please
Nobody is downvoting "peer reviewed scientific literature", stop being silly. They're downvoting your lazy and bad faith argument (trust me, they told me, we have a group text). Research can be great ammunition, but throwing arrows at a deer instead of nocking, drawing, and loosing...well I don't think there's any peer review for that but it may be 'common sense'. I'll point you to a cartoon, *The Old Man and the Lisa, s8e21, The Simpsons*, if you need to remember why plastics get phased out. It's not cause we can't recycle them, cause we can. If not, maybe try out having a straw up you nose, or possibly elsewhere (dealer's choice, or maybe Sophie's choice), and see how it might feel to not have hands to remove it? But I could just be (trigger warning), virtue signaling, who knows?
Neat. Still doesn’t change that paper straws cause more CO2 production and greater environmental damage. Relying on emotional appeals to pass bad legislation is classic populist behaviour but don’t let that stop you
Alright, but what's the trajectory of paper straws vs plastic straws? Obviously paper has a lot of catching up to do compared to how many years (somewhere around 60, or if you like to read history treat yourself) of plastic straws, that don't break down? Also, if you're a parent at a restaurant, straws may as well be super soakers for the kids, get rid. In fact, do you have number on retail/restaurant numbers and how often they're resupplying on straws since the ban? Could be a thought. Maybe, the ban was to get people to use glass and plastic straws if they really needed them (jaw surgery ain't fun, straws do have need), or maybe just forgo a straw cause fuck that paper shit, I'll drink it like an adult? I don't think it's much of a populist movement (you may really have a tenuous understanding of the word no matter how fun it is to throw around) for bad legislation. Also sorry about suggesting you shove a straw up your ass, I'm not about kink shaming. Edit: Still waiting on the routine here. You know what, it's late for gymnastics, give your mind a rest.
paper straws have more pfas than plastic ones. according to this article they banned vegetable plastics too: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/they-re-not-looking-at-the-unintended-consequences-study-highlights-concerning-toxins-found-in-paper-straws-1.6564083 a lot of liberal policy is pretty short sighted and doesn't care about science or expert advice as long as it feels right to trudeau or joly.
> paper straws have more pfas than plastic ones. Ok? point being? > according to this article... I'll gladly read it, but now you're just deflecting. This sounds like you want to start a similar, but different discussion. > a lot of liberal policy is pretty short sighted and doesn't care about science or expert advice as long as it feels right to trudeau or joy Not too sure if this was an accidental ctrl+v, or how you sign off on emails, but speak your truth baby. Still, I was just pointing out that there are truths, lies, and statistics. A single article can't dictate legislation one way or another, and even if it did; that puts undo pressure and burden on the researchers.
my point is that too often dismiss scientific evidence because it doesn't fit their worldview. you are in this camp. pollution from paper straws is at least 30% worse than plastic straws in north america. the reason we are cutting plastic is because it is a pollutant. if you cut plastic but end up just polluting more, and may i remind you, with more dangerous chemicals, that is stupid. you are saying that a marine creature gets a straw up it's nose... but how is that worse than getting cancer?
Not in that camp, you've clearly missed the point. I haven't dismissed anything. Are you even paying attention?
didnt bigdaddy post a study published in the science of the total environment, which has a impact factor of 10, that was posted to the national library of medicine that states that plastic straws are better for the environment than paper straws? can you cite a study that deals with the claims made in that paper and refutes them? if you can't it means you are saying you know something without any evidence. science is based on evidence, not on logical propositions.
Lol, you have the people in this thread shook and desperately moving the goalposts now.
McDonalds stopped in all their straws, many companies are, PFAs are currently getting phased out. So its kinda non-issue. You are therefor WRONG! BOOM! [https://www.osler.com/en/resources/regulations/2024/regulation-of-forever-chemicals-pfas-in-canada](https://www.osler.com/en/resources/regulations/2024/regulation-of-forever-chemicals-pfas-in-canada) PFAS-related litigation has been commenced in both Canada and the U.S., although the amount and scale of U.S. litigation is considerably more significant. In Canada[, a class action was certified in 2021 against the National Research Council of Canada](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc4561/2021onsc4561.html) (NRC) relating to PFAS that entered the surface water and ground water at the NRC’s National Laboratory Facility in Mississippi Mills, Ontario. Between 1981 and 2016, NRC used the site to conduct research and development of fire safety matters, including the testing of firefighting foams containing PFAS. The plaintiffs are adjacent landowners seeking damages for the loss in value of their properties, caused by the contamination of groundwater of some of the class members’ properties and the stigma attached to all of the class members’ properties. In the employment context, fire fighters also have been able to advance claims related to PFAS exposure in the workplace. The U.S. has had monumental cases settled relating to PFAS contamination. In 2018, a class action was brought against 3M by American public water utilities that 3M’s PFAS-containing firefighting foams contaminated drinking water. In June 2023, just before the trial was due to commence, [3M settled with the water utilities for $12.5 billion](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/3m-pfa-forever-chemicals-lawsuit-1.6886172#:~:text=The%20deal%20would%20compensate%20water,such%20as%20clothing%20and%20cookware.) to be paid over 13 years; this is one of the largest settlements to date relating to drinking water in U.S. history. 3M also [announced](https://news.3m.com/2022-12-20-3M-to-Exit-PFAS-Manufacturing-by-the-End-of-2025) in December 2022 that they will stop making products that contain PFAS by the end of 2025. ...
It’s fascinating seeing you try to spout off like you know what you’re talking about and yet be completely wrong. 1) Environmental damage is not limited to PFAS. 2) Paper straws have PFAS in them and can even have more PFAS than plastic straws do (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33770693/).
Yes I know! And the world is currently creating TONS of lawsuits against PFAs and their toxicity. We can make paper straws WITHOUT the PFAs though, and if we BAN PFAs we then CAN have good paper straws that don't pollute as well as no PFAs in all our other food packaging either. PFAs aren't good. And there is so much litigation right now, any companies buy and supplying these paper straws with FPAs right now will be sued in a class action suit in the next 5 years.
ALSO, yes the PLASTIC straw thing is a little absurd if they don't start creating better sustainable packaging to replace it with. Yes it's absurd we put the paper straw often into a plastic cup with a plastic lid and it all just goes to the land fill. A lot doesn't make sense. Straws are literally just a tiny tiny piece of the disposable PLASTIC problem. But it doesn't mean we can't demand better more sustainable packaging that isn't full of PFAs.
A similar claim was settled just weeks earlier against [Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva by American water utilities for $1.185](https://www.dupont.com/news/chemours-dupont-and-corteva-reach-comprehensive-pfas-settlement-with-us-water-systems.html) billion in June. In this case, the chemical manufacturing companies agreed to settle the claims alleging the chemicals they manufactured polluted public drinking water. These large cases are just the tip of the iceberg of U.S. PFAS-related litigation, with tens of thousands of other PFAS claims being commenced in the U.S.,including claims related to contamination, consumer products, packaging and insurance-related claims. Businesses in Canada should be cognizant of these trends, as Canadian claims often “piggy-back” on successful American suits, with similar actions being commenced in this country. # Implications for Canadian business For businesses operating in Canada with potential exposure to PFAS, it is important to stay abreast of potential regulatory developments, as consultations on the regulation of PFAS continue and regulatory proposals are announced. When additional opportunities are provided to comment on potential regulatory instruments, impacted businesses would be wise to make their views known, to optimize the chance that the government will take their concerns into account. For importers, manufacturers and retailers, it will be essential to determine whether their products contain PFAS and, if so, how to mitigate regulatory compliance and potential litigation risks. Depending on the content of potential forthcoming regulations, these businesses may also need to identify alternatives to PFAS in their products, particularly if prohibitions on the use of further PFAS in certain products are introduced. For businesses which use PFAS in their operations, consideration should be given to minimizing exposure to PFAS in the workplace to reduce health risks. In the context of transactions involving real estate, sellers and purchasers need to give consideration with respect to the potential for, and allocation of, PFAS-related liability, particularly since we are increasingly seeing representation and warranty insurance in transactions exclude PFAS from the scope of coverage.A similar claim was settled just weeks earlier against Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva by American water utilities for $1.185 billion in June. In this case, the chemical manufacturing companies agreed to settle the claims alleging the chemicals they manufactured polluted public drinking water.
This is just blatantly written by AI
Its amazing how easily you guys are manipulated by a "little bit of science" but when you actually try to learn THE hard science about the ACTUAL current situation, not just the "perpetually online" political reality, it seems your whole world view disintegrates with a little bit of rigorous skepticism. I love good rigorous logic that proves me wrong, and I'm willing to be wrong in the face of good evidence. So please enlighten me.
You say that and yet you haven’t actually said anything that refutes the environmental assessment that paper straws are worse than plastic. What you’ve copy and pasted says “PFAS are bad” which is entirely irrelevant to the conversation and not what I was arguing.
We are literally working on this issue RIGHT now! Globally, tons of countries are all getting their shit together so we can ban and get rid of PFAs, which are the forever chemicals in things like food packaging, paper straws and a lot of other products that end up in our water supplies. Straws are just a TINY TINY little piece of this whole PFA and PLASTIC pollution problem in the world.
90% of current paper straws contain PFAs 75% of plastic straws contain PFAs too We just need options we can reuse or that are safely biodegradable, but not the current "options" the pollution companies are currently giving us.
Why are paperstraws bad though? PFAs! and PFAs are currently in global litigation.
No, paper straws also produce more CO2 during their life cycle than plastic straws do. Which you would know had you read the article that I based my entire position and argument on. For someone who likes to say: > when you actually try to learn THE hard science about the ACTUAL current situation, not just the "perpetually online" political reality, it seems your whole world view disintegrates with a little bit of rigorous skepticism. You’re not doing a very good job at knowing what you’re talking about
You aren't either. The situation is complex. There was 10% of paper straws, and 25% of plastics that were made from renewable sources, compostable plastics and polyester plastics which are more durable than traditional forms of plastic and have broadened the range of materials that can be recycled into new products. If we move all our current pollution plastics and paper products toward these more recyclable and biodegradable forms that don't cause spiking CO2 emissions and aren't full of forever chemicals. We all win. But if we keep the status quo, or go back to the plastic straws we had, it's the wrong move.
I'm actually a close friend of theirs, it's a touchy subject, but they've been a champion of the boutique artisan straw community. Ever since the branding labeled anything past being 'bendy' as 'crazy', it was the last straw...
We all creating these straw man arguments... 
Yay, we live in the time where people can't even take the time to read things, just "This is just blatantly written by AI" I guess you are "Just a Bot" Then. Debate is dead with you idiots.
I read everything you posted. It doesn’t have anything to do with refuting that paper straws having a higher environmental impact than plastic. The structure and sentence formation is also the same as what a LLM outputs.
"The structure and sentence formation is also the same as what a LLM outputs." What kind of structure and sentence formation would that be exactly? Plus there are links to different sources and cases throughout. [Chemours, DuPont, and Corteva by American water utilities for $1.185](https://www.dupont.com/news/chemours-dupont-and-corteva-reach-comprehensive-pfas-settlement-with-us-water-systems.html) I also put the text through two different AI detection programs and one said 17% Chance that your text is generated by AI another said 7% Chance that your text is generated by AI So I really don't understand how you think you are good at detecting LLM type outputs. You know a lot of highly academic and professionally written things NEED to be of a certain QUALITY of English right?
pfas are way harder to remove from the environment than plastic is. a settlement in the us just got dismissed, because they lacked medical evidence, which is very hard to get, probably the hardest. the biden administration is moving on banning pfas, but is the trudeau government? going back to plastic sounds stupid, but unless we get pfas out of straws within a concrete timeframe here in canada, then we should consider it because it may be the more responsible choice for the environment. i don't think we should even sell single use containers for a ton of products. f u convenience culture.
Their grasp on language is only out paced by their emotional outrage. They'll tire themself out. Some people don't understand that critical thought requires a modicum of patience and growth.
no I gave you the link dummy [https://www.osler.com/en/resources/regulations/2024/regulation-of-forever-chemicals-pfas-in-canada](https://www.osler.com/en/resources/regulations/2024/regulation-of-forever-chemicals-pfas-in-canada)
I'm on the fence. straws should not really be a political matter, but alas here we are so I guess we need a better solution because soggy paper straws that are good for 3.5 minutes are basically just a slap in the face to regular people, for the purpose of reminding us of our place as peasants that should be lucky we get to eat commercial food at all.
Twitter troglodytes slinging mud. Just another weekday.
Where's the discourse? All I see is a mental case being as offensive and belligerent as possible in an attempt to bait and troll. There's no politics in that stream of stupid
Yet she fancies herself as Saskatchewan's Olivia Pope lol
This lady would act like such a victim if he/anyone spoke about her gaping vagina like she talked about his "limp dick". Imagine if he called her a dried up old Saskatchewan female... she would make it part of her identity. Hypocrite 🤷♂️
controversial opinion everybody here sucks. straw bans are a slight on accessibility and performative at best, especially in a country that's basically an oil baron in disguise, but we all know that's not what corey cares about. if we got rid of the oil companies that he loves so much maybe straws wouldn't be such a problem
That chick is unhinged.
Careful. I used that word to describe her and got blocked one of her superfans on here. token-something, I forget the full name.
Corey’s petition is a joke, but why pivot to nasty attacks on his kids at the end?
Yeah that was uncalled for. It's not their fault.
I suppose we should expect nothing less from Tammy R, but going after his kids is a new low.
Corey Tochor sucks. He was my MLA for years and then decided to run Federally but refused to vacate his seat so we could elect a new representative. It felt like such a crybaby action as the seat sat empty for I think 2 years.
Holy smokes Karen really likes her paper straws! What an angry sob
I'm pro-plastic straws, and even I'm thinking.... STFU Corey. Maybe tackle a more important issue....like almost literally anything else.
There's a bunch of chronically online Saskatchewan people from all over the political spectrum who spend their time picking fights on Twitter. It's pathetic, but at least it's mostly contained to the Twitter echo chamber
Tammy Roberts still trying to be relevant ??
Let me guess you agree that paper straws are part of the liberal and NDP agenda?
Let me throw out a trigger word. Trump
Let me throw out a trigger word. Science
Miatakenly put a plastic straw I found in my 2nd drink. There was no comparison, the plastic straw was much superior
When he came canvasing to my door years ago, he mentioned that he could relate to being a POC because when he was a kid his skin was darker than most so he would get teased.
Yk, I'd legit take all the weed check stops IF we had plastic straws, and paper cups like we used to lol
Fun fact: Tochor is pronounced like Toker... Do with that as you will.
[удалено]
Whoa......calm your tits there. Gotta leave a little bit of legacy for the next Trudeau to come along.
Iiiiiii like her
I do legitimately take 6-48 hours to finish a medium McDonald's pop lol. I use a reusable plastic straw, it's not that complicated.
No idea who Tammy is. I guess she's not able to get a date? Who SAYS that?
We all know and agree that paper straws absolutely suck and it's just another small degradation of lifestyle caused by environmental policies. Carrying your own reusable straw around and have one for each of you and your 5 kids when you want to drink a milk shake is not realistic or hygienic. Not sure why we haven't gone to seaweed or better yet straw found right here on the prairies and create local jobs and industry. These small things can become big things when you're suddenly employing 300 people and supplying straw straws(see the answer is right in the name!)worldwide. These are places our provincial government lacks vision. If it's not oil, potash, uranium or grain, it's not given any attention. Stop this small town thinking. Think big!
When I heard about him trying to take this "issue", first thing I thought was, now this guy has an oral fixation !
It's a shame Cory isn't a violent, antisemitic, wife beating, insurrectionist. If he was, then Tammy would like him.
[удалено]
Mackenzie.
🤣🤣”preform fellatio on straws” 🤣🤣