News Disney removing plastic straws and more by mid-2019

[UCF]

No we are just smart enough to know it was a bs excuse. At the time reducing paper waste was the fad... but it was short sighted pitch that ignored paper was renewalable and easier on the environment. The eco pitch was marketing only.... the real benefit was to the bottom line and the expense of the future. Eventually that future arrived, and the penalty was seen. Now the move is to reusable....

Except the research doesn't really quite match that theory:
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/paper-plastic1.htm

This gives both sides of the issue. Only big thing really missing from it is paper bags don't really biodegrade in landfills either, because that process takes oxygen and air flow, and the liners of the landfills are designed to prevent that (they want to reduce the release of methane since thats far worse for the environment). http://www.allaboutbags.ca/typesofbags.html

I'm very pro doing whats environmentally friendly, but the whole "plastic is evil" thing is overblown because the alternatives are often just as evil if not more so. I myself use a mix of reusable and plastic bags because I feel thats what is actually best for the environment. I try to limit my plastic bag use to what I will use at least twice.

 

[flynnibus]

Except the research doesn't really quite match that theory:
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/paper-plastic1.htm

Which theory? The one pitched 30 years ago, or what today's stats say?

And your cite defeats your own argument. The point about biodegration in landfills is not a flaw of paper vs other materials - it's that landfills aren't meant for decomposition at all. It's a misapplication of facts - not to point out paper is a poorer choice.

But paper is by percentage still captured vs landfilled way more by far than plastic

"
The recycling rate of paper and paperboard was among the highest compared to other materials in MSW. Over 92 percent of all corrugated boxes were recycled in 2015, while newspapers/mechanical papers were recycled at a rate of 71.2 percent. Recycling of other paper and paperboard products was estimated as mixed paper; 43.6 percent of mixed nondurable paper products and 26.4 percent of mixed paper containers and packaging were recycled (See definitions of nondurable goods and containers and packaging). Approximately 45.3 million tons of post-consumer paper and paperboard were recycled in 2015 for a recycling rate of 68.6 percent"
https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figur...g/paper-and-paperboard-material-specific-data

The truth is... the switch to plastic shopping bags over paper was not an environmental one... 'save paper'/'save the trees' was just pandering to help sell people on why these thin flimsly bags were 'better' than the bags everyone grew up with.

I'm very pro doing whats environmentally friendly, but the whole "plastic is evil" thing is overblown because the alternatives are often just as evil if not more so

That is incredibly flawed logic - you don't take one weakness (that is easily overcome) to mean its that way across the board. At the end of the day... the long term consequence of these products is still starkly different. "reduce" is the only action that really has dramatic impact in short periods.

 

[Nottamus]

Recycling is the key.

I have a acquaintance that manages a trash/recycling facility and he is amazed at the amount of recyclable material that ends up in reg trash. Granted, it a little corner of the world, but it starts with us.

All you have to do is see the articles of the 'Plastic Islands" out there in the oceans to know we messed up, and it needs fixing.

 

[John park hopper]

By "WE" I hope you mean the entire world population. There was a time when soda was in glass refundable bottles and milk came in refundable jugs. I can remember as a kid collecting bottle along the road for the refund. Unfortunately we live in a throw away society, very little is fixable or made to last any more --use it breaks throw it way get another one.

 

[Nottamus]

Totally meant the world. People. All of us. The ones making, using, discarding it all.

 

[jaklgreen]

I suspect that the reason for both changes was to save money. They just had a convenient excuse for the straw change. They're clearly not environmentalists.

BTW, I recently came across the 2016 United States National Postconsumer Plastic Bottle Recycling Report and the 2016 National Post-Consumer Plastic Bag & Film Recycling Report. Fascinating stuff. Recycling rates on bottles hit a peak in 2015 and have slumped slightly since then. It's not clear what's caused this but the report calls for additional consumer education and a continuing increase in convenient collection of bottles for recycling in all public venues.

Well our city says they recycle and have separate pick ups but they all go into the dump. The recycling companies go out of business because it is not profitable enough. The change has to be that the government does it not as a money making idea but because it is the right thing to do. But we all know that most people in that position are just swayed by the money.

 

[UCF]

Which theory? The one pitched 30 years ago, or what today's stats say?

I did provide links to sources. Plastic bags are reused or recycled a little under 50 percent of the time (emphasis on reused as if we eliminate them, people can and do buy new plastic bags to replace them as a single use bag, and typically buy thicker ones when they do that)

And your cite defeats your own argument. The point about biodegration in landfills is not a flaw of paper vs other materials - it's that landfills aren't meant for decomposition at all. It's a misapplication of facts - not to point out paper is a poorer choice.

Wrong. Paper and plastic are BOTH recyclable, but a common benefit of paper is claimed that its biodegradable and will fully decompose so what we use today won't be around for 100+ years... this is the premise of all the don't use plastic straws videos out there, but, if you don't recycle it and it ends up in the landfill, its being sent to a place where it literally cannot decompose, so in the case of paper straws, its something that uses more energy and has a larger impact to produce, takes more fuel and places more vehicles on the road for the increased load, and then ends up taking up more permanent space in our landfills.

But paper is by percentage still captured vs landfilled way more by far than plastic

But if you massively increase the quantity of paper in order to get a better percentage captured, thats not actually useful. The problem is you need 8x as much paper bags to give the equivalent function of 1x of plastic bags. So if you got 100 tons of plastic bags used for a grocery chain, they need to replace it with 800 tons of paper bags. The combined reuse/recycle rates, seem to be somewhere near 63% (not really as its combined with the rest of the category, and that is generally the lowest subcategory), lets round that to 70% to give it benefit of the doubt. The plastic bag combined reuse/recycling rate seems to be somewhere between 40% and 50%, so lets just use 40%. So with the store using plastic bags, they would have 60 tons of plastic not reused/recycled and sent to the landfill. With paper bags, even with the much higher percentage of reuse/recycling they still would have 240 tons of paper not reused/recycled and sent to the landfill. Obviously it'd be far better if the recycling rate of plastic bags was much higher as is paper, and there is no real technical reason for that other then our waste collection system isn't setup for it (generally because its such a low impact thing in the first place).

That is incredibly flawed logic - you don't take one weakness (that is easily overcome) to mean its that way across the board. At the end of the day... the long term consequence of these products is still starkly different. "reduce" is the only action that really has dramatic impact in short periods.

But as you yourself said, in the landfill, the long term effect isn't really and different as neither one is going to biodegrade. What is the difference if we mummify paper in a landfill or plastic inside that sealed environment (with plastic)? The only difference is the space it takes up, and paper loses badly there.

I agree with you on reducing is the way to have a real impact... but we can reduce in better ways. Not just handing them to every single person and requiring them to be requested, or repositioning them to make them a little harder to get and make people thing twice if they really need them (like is sometimes done by some places with condiments when they don't want them to be consumed so fast). If that was the action done, nobody would really be complaining.

 

[s8film40]

I agree with you on reducing is the way to have a real impact... but we can reduce in better ways. Not just handing them to every single person and requiring them to be requested, or repositioning them to make them a little harder to get and make people thing twice if they really need them (like is sometimes done by some places with condiments when they don't want them to be consumed so fast). If that was the action done, nobody would really be complaining.

This is what frustrates me so much. I'm not really a big environmentalist, but one thing I can't stand is waste. We seem to have such a culture of waste. I feel like these straw bans are just a way to ease most people's guilty conscience when so much more could be achieved if everyone would just do a little bit to reduce waste.

For example as you mention straws being handed out. When I go to restaurants I don't use straws, however servers will often automatically bring straws. Sometimes they'll just place one near the drink, other times it's an opened one in the drink. Each consecutive refill will often come with a new straw I don't need. Or even worse they'll just throw a big pile of them in the middle of the table. Occasionally I'll come across servers who just keep them in their apron and hand them out as needed, but that's very rare. In these cases it's not even one straw per person per drink but multiple. Also condiments as you mention are a huge waste. People often take way more than they need or are given way more than they need and simply throw them away. I actually was at SeaWorld a while back and needed one packet of ketchup. The restaurant was closing so I asked the guy packing up the condiment bar if I could get one packet of ketchup. He handed me about 15. I told him I only needed one and tried to give the rest back. He refused and said just throw away what you don't use. Personally I either leave any unused condiments neatly stacked on the table for the next person to maybe use or keep them. I have a real nice little condiment basket in my kitchen with a wide variety of sauces and condiments from a wide array of fast food places. It's actually kind of a nice luxury to have that selection of sauces for whatever I may be eating at home. It's very easy to do these little things and far more effective.

 

[jaklgreen]

This is what frustrates me so much. I'm not really a big environmentalist, but one thing I can't stand is waste. We seem to have such a culture of waste. I feel like these straw bans are just a way to ease most people's guilty conscience when so much more could be achieved if everyone would just do a little bit to reduce waste.

For example as you mention straws being handed out. When I go to restaurants I don't use straws, however servers will often automatically bring straws. Sometimes they'll just place one near the drink, other times it's an opened one in the drink. Each consecutive refill will often come with a new straw I don't need. Or even worse they'll just throw a big pile of them in the middle of the table. Occasionally I'll come across servers who just keep them in their apron and hand them out as needed, but that's very rare. In these cases it's not even one straw per person per drink but multiple. Also condiments as you mention are a huge waste. People often take way more than they need or are given way more than they need and simply throw them away. I actually was at SeaWorld a while back and needed one packet of ketchup. The restaurant was closing so I asked the guy packing up the condiment bar if I could get one packet of ketchup. He handed me about 15. I told him I only needed one and tried to give the rest back. He refused and said just throw away what you don't use. Personally I either leave any unused condiments neatly stacked on the table for the next person to maybe use or keep them. I have a real nice little condiment basket in my kitchen with a wide variety of sauces and condiments from a wide array of fast food places. It's actually kind of a nice luxury to have that selection of sauces for whatever I may be eating at home. It's very easy to do these little things and far more effective.

The biggest waste I see at work is napkins. People take a giant stack of at least 20 napkins that they do not need at all. Then they leave them on the table presumably for the nest person. But we have to throw them away per health codes. We can not reuse the napkins that someone has taken to their table. Another big waste is water. We have the washable cups for free water and it is all self serve. People fill their cups all the way to the top, almost every single person does this. But only a fraction of the people drink more than a third of it. Most of the times the table busser struggles to carry back these full cups of water to dump out. We all need to be better and be more aware of what we are wasting.

 

[s8film40]

The biggest waste I see at work is napkins. People take a giant stack of at least 20 napkins that they do not need at all. Then they leave them on the table presumably for the nest person. But we have to throw them away per health codes. We can not reuse the napkins that someone has taken to their table. Another big waste is water. We have the washable cups for free water and it is all self serve. People fill their cups all the way to the top, almost every single person does this. But only a fraction of the people drink more than a third of it. Most of the times the table busser struggles to carry back these full cups of water to dump out. We all need to be better and be more aware of what we are wasting.

Yes! Napkins are another one I just don't get. I have me, my wife and our 4 year old and I count out 8 napkins. That's two for each of us, and two extra in case we need a little more and if not those are used to wipe down the table before we leave. It's plenty and on the very rare occasion we need more we can simply walk back up and get a few extra. Seems as if most people just grab a huge handful like about a 1-2 inch stack. Another great thing some quick service places do, and there's no reason Disney couldn't do this is place the small napkin dispensers on tables. It makes it easier to only use what you need and also eliminates some of the crowding around drink/condiment stations at busy locations.

 

[flynnibus]

I did provide links to sources. Plastic bags are reused or recycled a little under 50 percent of the time (emphasis on reused as if we eliminate them, people can and do buy new plastic bags to replace them as a single use bag, and typically buy thicker ones when they do that)

I didn’t see that specific stat... and think it’s way high based on the stats put out by the epa on material categories that had all plastics categories at a fraction of that.

Wrong. Paper and plastic are BOTH recyclable, but a common benefit of paper is claimed that its biodegradable and will fully decompose so what we use today won't be around for 100+ years... this is the premise of all the don't use plastic straws videos out there, but, if you don't recycle it and it ends up in the landfill, its being sent to a place where it literally cannot decompose, so in the case of paper straws, its something that uses more energy and has a larger impact to produce, takes more fuel and places more vehicles on the road for the increased load, and then ends up taking up more permanent space in our landfills.

This is again... broken logic. Just because we are not composting the paper doesn’t make it NOT decomposable. This would be like me saying plastic isn’t recyclable because your town doesn’t recycle.

The fact that in a landfill it’s not given the opportunity to break down does not change it can break down if handled differently. It also ignores what happens with landfill before it’s covered. Contrast this with the plastics which if not recycled (a known major issue)... there is zero alternative. Paper is short changed by the common practice of landfill sealing... plastic just lasts “forever” regardless of what we do.

But if you massively increase the quantity of paper in order to get a better percentage captured, thats not actually useful. The problem is you need 8x as much paper bags to give the equivalent function of 1x of plastic bags

You are mixing up stats. You are mixing up quantity with weight.... and then trying to use that to misapply to the recycle/reuse ratios. The bags are not used 1:1 to each other, etc. it doesn’t account for different style bags, etc.

Plastic bags used in grocery are incredibly light... but it also means we use wayyyyy more of them. The mass and handling benefits are only for the shops because labor... which is way more expensive.... can stock, handle, and fill those plastic bags very fast compared to paper bags (I know... I was in grocery and my family has several lifelong grocery managers in it).

The environmental impact was never really the driver in the change... it was money. The conservation movement was just starting to mainstream instead of being a hippie thing. People were being told we are deforresting the planet.... the ozone layer is going to disappear... so it’s real easy to say “save the trees!” And use these smaller bags instead. Paper was going up in cost.... plastic was going down.... follow the money.

Landfill space (and their use) is a diffrent problem verse biodegradable or not.

But as you yourself said, in the landfill, the long term effect isn't really and different as neither one is going to biodegrade. What is the difference if we mummify paper in a landfill or plastic inside that sealed environment (with plastic)?

The difference is landfill isn’t the only option... and one has future alternates while the other doesn’t. Paper is also a renewalable resource.

 

[UCF]

I didn’t see that specific stat... and think it’s way high based on the stats put out by the epa on material categories that had all plastics categories at a fraction of that.

Its in the links I provided. Remember, that statistic includes REUSE that is much more environmentally friendly then recycling. The links I provided show that many people reuse a ton of plastic bags, but don't re-use paper bags because of worse strength, difficulty in storage, and more space consumed. Infact, as mentioned in the link, when areas have banned plastic bags from being used for bagging groceries, it results in very significant increases in rolls of plastic trash liners being sold, so people ARE reusing them a ton.

This is again... broken logic. Just because we are not composting the paper doesn’t make it NOT decomposable. This would be like me saying plastic isn’t recyclable because your town doesn’t recycle.

The fact that in a landfill it’s not given the opportunity to break down does not change it can break down if handled differently. It also ignores what happens with landfill before it’s covered. Contrast this with the plastics which if not recycled (a known major issue)... there is zero alternative. Paper is short changed by the common practice of landfill sealing... plastic just lasts “forever” regardless of what we do.

Thats not true, plastic doesn't last forever, it breaks down under a different process then paper, generally using light and heat and a few other processes as well. But even that is questionable, as in recent years we've discovered some bacteria does eat plastics, and as the quantity of plastics to decompose has increased, the bacterias have been evolving to do it better, and scientists have found ways to help it along to make the process even faster

You are mixing up stats. You are mixing up quantity with weight.... and then trying to use that to misapply to the recycle/reuse ratios. The bags are not used 1:1 to each other, etc. it doesn’t account for different style bags, etc.

Yes, because the paper bags are still weaker even though they're larger and take up usually at least 8 times the volume and weight, frequently the switch to paper bags involves using MORE of them. Whenever I go to Trader Joes which doesn't have plastic, they put the milks in TWO paper bags because the bags break if you only use one. Double bagging with paper is extremely common, with plastic extremely rare.

People were being told we are deforresting the planet.... the ozone layer is going to disappear... so it’s real easy to say “save the trees!” And use these smaller bags instead. Paper was going up in cost.... plastic was going down.... follow the money.

I was in school during this, I remember being told we need to stop consuming so much paper because we were deforesting our planet and destroying the ozone layer. That predated the success plastic bags. I'm not doubting that plastic bags are cheaper, they use a TON less resources to produce, are much smaller, and much lighter for the weight and volume of products they're able to handle.

The difference is landfill isn’t the only option... and one has future alternates while the other doesn’t. Paper is also a renewable resource.

They are both recyclable, and both do degrade over time... we're still developing new processes and bacteria to make the process faster, cheaper, and better for each, so I can't figure out, which are you referring to which doesn't have a future alternative?

Plastics used for bags and straws are also a byproduct of natural gas energy production, which is booming, and if we don't produce the plastic bags and its not sequestered as those solids, the alternative of releasing that greenhouse gas into the atmosphere also happens to be worse for the environment. "

• Polyethylene bags are made out of ethane, a component of natural gas. Ethane is extracted to lower the BTU value of the gas in order to meet pipeline and gas utility specifications and so that the natural gas doesn’t burn too hot when used as fuel in our homes or businesses. The ethane is converted, and its BTU value is “frozen” into a solid form (polyethylene) using a catalytic process to make a plastic shopping bag.

"

 

[flynnibus]

Its in the links I provided. Remember, that statistic includes REUSE that is much more environmentally friendly then recycling. The links I provided show that many people reuse a ton of plastic bags, but don't re-use paper bags because of worse strength, difficulty in storage, and more space consumed

You do realize the cite you are using is a plastics industry association site? Not exactly your most objective reference. Paper bags are not effective for re-use. No one really contests that. Bringing that up is just FUD to muddy the conversation.

Thats not true, plastic doesn't last forever, it breaks down under a different process then paper, generally using light and heat and a few other processes as well. But even that is questionable, as in recent years we've discovered some bacteria does eat plastics, and as the quantity of plastics to decompose has increased, the bacterias have been evolving to do it better, and scientists have found ways to help it along to make the process even faster

You should have noticed the air quotes used... because the point wasn't to cite a specific duration (as it depends on the material) but that it is many many lifetimes in length.. compared to paper which isn't even a fraction in comparison. And for all the 'maybes', 'we are working on...' - reality is, today the stuff sticks around for longer than any of us will ever live to see.

Yes, because the paper bags are still weaker even though they're larger and take up usually at least 8 times the volume and weight, frequently the switch to paper bags involves using MORE of them. Whenever I go to Trader Joes which doesn't have plastic, they put the milks in TWO paper bags because the bags break if you only use one. Double bagging with paper is extremely common, with plastic extremely rare.

Dude.. put down the plastic koolaide jug and stop abusing stats. The space/weight comparison is about storage and handling... not usage. Businesses likes that they can put more bags in the same space (which means less labor tied up in restocking). The weight comparison is all about the plastics industry arguing how they can get so much more product out there for less material (driving costs down). None of this is about actual touch points with the consumer. So please stop throwing out the 8:1 stat where it doesn't apply.

Milk is probably double bagged by them because of the plastic jug sweating - not the weight. Paper bags generally hold far far more volume than plastic bags. But it requires more effort to pack them properly (which is why stores don't like them vs the alternative). Its the same reason the reusable bags are slower to pack vs the PE bags. Paper bags can easily be loaded with the equivalent of 4, 5 or more plastic bags... but you must be more strategic in how the bag is packed. Most stores don't even seem to teach bag packing anymore given the amount of 'no no's you see them do today with mixing of product in bags.

And as for no double bagging of plastic... your credibility is nearing zero. It's done all the time when bagging bottles.. or items with corners that tend to tear the bags.

It's just faster (and hence, cheaper) to load 4-5 items in a plastic bag, and load 2-3 bags at a time than it is to load 1-2 paper bags effectively. If you didn't know... clerks are measured by their IPM (Items per Minute) scanning rate. (this is why you see clerks often total a purchase mid order while they pack stuff... this stops the timer...).

I'm not doubting that plastic bags are cheaper, they use a TON less resources to produce, are much smaller, and much lighter for the weight and volume of products they're able to handle.

There are a ton of products that are simply easier to produce, smaller and lighter than the alternatives... but still aren't favored because they have other traits.. like causing cancer, or are toxic, or simply can't be easily disposed of. You have to look at the whole picture, not hang on 'it has positive traits'. Often, the best solutions have to be limited because of their total consequences. (Example: pretty much the entire solvents industry)

They are both recyclable, and both do degrade over time... we're still developing new processes and bacteria to make the process faster, cheaper, and better for each, so I can't figure out, which are you referring to which doesn't have a future alternative?

Here's a hint... the material that can be disposed of cleanly, recycled, or allowed to decompose on its own... today. Which do you think that is?

 

[s8film40]

This is what frustrates me so much. I'm not really a big environmentalist, but one thing I can't stand is waste. We seem to have such a culture of waste. I feel like these straw bans are just a way to ease most people's guilty conscience when so much more could be achieved if everyone would just do a little bit to reduce waste.

For example as you mention straws being handed out. When I go to restaurants I don't use straws, however servers will often automatically bring straws. Sometimes they'll just place one near the drink, other times it's an opened one in the drink. Each consecutive refill will often come with a new straw I don't need. Or even worse they'll just throw a big pile of them in the middle of the table. Occasionally I'll come across servers who just keep them in their apron and hand them out as needed, but that's very rare. In these cases it's not even one straw per person per drink but multiple. Also condiments as you mention are a huge waste. People often take way more than they need or are given way more than they need and simply throw them away. I actually was at SeaWorld a while back and needed one packet of ketchup. The restaurant was closing so I asked the guy packing up the condiment bar if I could get one packet of ketchup. He handed me about 15. I told him I only needed one and tried to give the rest back. He refused and said just throw away what you don't use. Personally I either leave any unused condiments neatly stacked on the table for the next person to maybe use or keep them. I have a real nice little condiment basket in my kitchen with a wide variety of sauces and condiments from a wide array of fast food places. It's actually kind of a nice luxury to have that selection of sauces for whatever I may be eating at home. It's very easy to do these little things and far more effective.

Funny coincidence I’m at Chick-fil-A and noticed this. A nice little easy way to save a lot of stuff from just getting thrown away.

 

[JoeCamel]

Funny coincidence I’m at Chick-fil-A and noticed this. A nice little easy way to save a lot of stuff from just getting thrown away.View attachment 300434

Best benefit is to the house. I think they make bank on that box

 

[John park hopper]

All the points about recycling made I get but as I posted much earlier the problem is we are adding more people to this planet every day and with that goes-- you have to feed them, cloth them, house them, provide energy, dispose of the additional waste etc etc. As far as feeding, the oceans have been a source of protein for centuries but we have fished it to the point many species are in sever decline and there is a point where they may not recover. We use the oceans a dumping ground for our waste. Land available for farming is being converted to housing projects daily for the increase in population yet we have to produce more food to feed the masses. OK so we don't use plastic straws and we feel good but at the same time more and more new products we consume are made of plastics. I look back at WW II and the national war effort to recycle metal, fats, paper, rubber etc. and grow victory gardens. I doubt that national effort and mind set we will ever occur again. People are inherently lazy it is easier to throw the beer can or plastic cup or empty McDonalds bag out the car window rather than recycle. or dispose it in the trash. I will continue to recycle what I can, however I question how much good it actually does

 

[LAKid53]

Personally, I want them to keep putting water bottle filling stations all over. I’ll gladly pay 15 bucks for a Disney decorated Nalgene bottle over a couple Dasanis any day.

What I’m saying is an EPCOT Center nalgene is my kyptonite.

Agree. Like that water bottle/water fountain combo in the standby queue for Navi.

 

[Nubs70]

One more Starbucks link-

https://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/environment/recycling

Reducing Waste: Packaging and Reusable Cups
As one of many companies in the food service business, we continue our commitment to lead the industry toward greater access to recycling for cups and other packaging—including driving demand for recycled materials. A key milestone came in 2006, when we began offering a cup with 10% post-consumer recycled paper fiber in North America, after helping develop the technology and leading the industry to gain approval for using recycled fiber for food packaging. We also include 50% post-consumer, recycled PET (rPET) in our cold cups used in European markets, and 15% rPET in our Bistro boxes in the US.

Reusable cups are also an important component of our overall waste reduction strategy. Since 1985 we’ve rewarded our customers with a discount when they bring in personal tumblers. In 2013 we launched a $2 reusable cup in the U.S. and Canada, and a £1cup in the United Kingdom

This is so much brainwashing corporate BS I could puke.

Food grade recycled fiber was available long before Starbucks decided to use it. If Starbucks was so concerned on their environmental impact, they should close down.

 

[Nubs70]

My thermodynamics education is just exploding in my head...



Because they are different - not the same as you keep believing.
Different temperatures...
Different mixes of product...
Different packaging...
Different overall heat capacity...

What you think is trivial differences in temperature, actually mean a lot when you are dealing with SCIENCE and not just lay beliefs.

The customer satisfaction of the product is a blend of it's taste, it's level of carbonation, and it's temperature. It doesn't take huge swings to make a noticeable impact to the consumer. Soda fountains used to be far more fickle to dial in correctly because of these variations.

Yup, I blew a vessel in my eye when I read 47 to 25.

 

[Nubs70]

Yes, I have a very nice (expensive) laser temperature scanner that I purchased for my son's science fair project (having to do with combustion temperatures of various objects) several years ago. The uniced soda started to lose "coolness" almost immediately, which probably explains the unexpected (by me) variation in temperature. The ice had lowered the temperature more than refrigerator temp (down to 32.5) in one glass at the same time that the other was getting warmer. So, the iced drink hadn't gotten back to the original warmer refrigerator temperature while the uniced drink was getting warmer - up to 47F in the time it took me to remove the ice and then compare temperatures of both drinks.

All the ice in the drink needs to melt before the drink will increase in temperature.