Persuasive Speech
Title: The Harms of Disposable Diapers
General Purpose: To
Persuade
Specific Purpose: To discourage the audience from using
disposable diapers.
Pattern of organization: Refutative
I
Introduction
A) Survey says children. Would rather use disposable
diapers. Nothing wrong with disposable.
B) Well, in reality there are
negative effects from using disposable diaper that can affect the environment
and the health of you and your children.
C) Do best for
family
D) Educate on the impact that producing, using, and
disposing
II Body
A) Production impact
1) Environmental and
health concerns right to doorstep. Chop down four or five trees to make 500 kg
of fluffy wood pulp baby will use in 2 ˝ years. (Catherine McDiarmid, 1997
Environmental Concerns) Then you will need just for your child, over 2,800 cubic
meters of nonrenewable natural gas to make 325 kg of plastic for the waterproof
backing and packaging for the 6,000 disposable diapers your child will
use.
2) (Jane McConnell, 1998, The Joy of Cloth Diapers) It takes about
82,000 tons of plastic and a quarter million trees to manufacture the disposable
diapers that cover the bottoms of 90% of the babies born in the U.S. each
year.
3) (The Canadian Cloth Diaper Association, 1997, The Facts: Cloth
Versus Disposable Diapers) For the convenience of using disposable diapers, you
are helping release wastewater produced by processing the pulp, paper and
plastic that contains solvents, sludge, heavy metals, unreacted polymers,
dioxins, and furans that will make their way into your neighborhood air and
water.
B) Health hazards
1) Forget environment, toxic
chemicals and baby. (Candace Brecevic, 2000, Disposing of Disposables) Newborn
skin has an underdeveloped outer layer, through which chemicals are more readily
absorbed and into the fat cells.
2) (Jane McConnell, 1998, The Joy of
Cloth Diapers) Disposable diapers subjects your babies skin to a chemical
by-product of the paper bleaching process known as Dioxin. Trace quantities may
exist in the diapers themselves and the chemical has been known to cause birth
defects, liver damage, and skin diseases.
3) Babies exposed to
questionable chemicals. Sodium polyacrylate (Jane McConnell, 1998, The Joy of
Cloth Diapers) this is what makes superabsorbent diapers so absorbent. This
material absorbs up to 100 times its weight in water. (Candace Brecevic, 2000,
Disposing of Disposables) Studies show that when this chemical becomes wet it is
even more absorbent and pulls moisture from baby's body. Sodium polyacrylate is
the same substance that was removed from tampons in 1985 because of its link to
toxic shock syndrome. No studies have been done on the long-term effects of this
chemical being in contact with a baby's reproductive organs 24 hours a day for
upwards of two years.
4) Feel dry when wet. Less frequent changing.
Longer exposure to bacteria from urine, which can cause diaper rash or other
bacterial infections. Plastic does not breath to let out the ammonia formed in
the bacterial breakdown of urine.
5) With all the chemicals (2000,
Disposable Diapers Linked to Asthma) A Study published in the October, 1999
issue of the Archives of Environmental Health found that laboratory mice exposed
to various brands of disposable diapers suffered increased eye, nose, and throat
irritation, including bronchoconstriction similar to that of an asthma
attack.
6) Another issue is safety, (Candace Brecevic, 2000, Disposing of
Disposables) some disposable diapers have been linked to suffocation. The
plastic exterior of the diaper is removable to aid in disposal. However, it can
be removed by your baby and can be as dangerous as letting them play with a
plastic bag. The absorbent padding with the sodium polyacrylate can also be
pulled apart by your baby and stuffed into their mouth and nose. To top it off,
the sticky tabs are not always strongly attached and if removed may be
ingested.
C) Disposing of Disposables
1) Exposing child to
questionable chemicals, bacterial infection, and suffocation. Remove t soiled
diaper, flushing the human waste, throw in trash ( Catherine McDiarmid,
1997,Environmental Concerns) you will be adding 214 pounds of raw fecal matter
into our landfill sites which are not designed to handle human waste. As many as
100 viruses can survive in your babies soiled diaper for up to two weeks,
including live polio viruses, excreted from your recently vaccinated baby.
Rainwater washing through dumps can carry these viruses into underground streams
and from there into our public and private water supplies.
2) What
happens to your child's 6,000 diapers? (Lee Reilly, 97, The Diaper Debate)When a
diaper is thrown into a traditional trash system it is on its way to perpetual
preservation. 6,000 per child (Jane McConnell 1998, The joy of Cloth Diapers)
Disposable diapers make up the third largest source of preserved solid waste in
landfills, after newspaper and food and beverage containers, a significant fact,
considering they are a single product, used by a limited portion of the
population. (Linda Baker, 1998, Bottom Out) Peter Spendelow, a waste reduction
specialist at the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality says, Think about
all the attention that is given to plastics and bottle recycling . Well there
are now more dirty diapers in the landfills than rigid plastics
combined.
18 billion diapers in landfills a year.
III
Conclusion
A) Clearly, there are problems related to using disposable
diapers that can cause harm to the environment and to your family's
health.
B) Consider the unnecessary depletion of natural resources,
the toxic air and water pollution created in the manufacturing process, the
health risk to your children and those drinking the water and the huge volume of
garbage.
C) It is very difficult to comprehend how washing and
reusing cloth diapers could create equivalent
damage.
Bibliography
Bibliography:
Baker, Linda. Bottoming
Out. E Magazine: The environmental Magazine. Sept/Oct, 1998: 25.
Academic
Search Elite. Galileo. 30, Oct. 2000.
1. A part of the Earth Action
Network Inc.
2. It was found on the database Galileo.
3. The work
quotes several different sources so it seems that they are well
informed.
4. It is a current article published in 1998.
5. Earth
Action Network published the work.
6. The work states who they are
quoting.
7. It does not include a bibliography
8. They work does
not contain evidence that the author is prejudice.
Brecevic, Candace.
Disposing of Disposables. Natural Life. Sept/Oct, 2000. 26. Mas
FullText
Ultra. Galileo. 30 Oct. 2000.
1. The author is the owner
of Diapering Decisions in London, Ontario.
2. It is credible because it
is on Galileo database.
3. The author is well informed because in the
article she says that she has done the research.
4. It was published
September/October of this year.
5. The work was published by Alternate
Press
6. No documentation
7. No bibliography.
8. She is
only prejudice against disposable diapers because she knows they have their
problems.
The Canadian Cloth Diaper Association. The Facts: Cloth versus
Disposable Diapers. 18
April. 2000. Born to Love Diapering and Parenting
Articles online. 30 Oct. 2000.
1. Born to love is certified a safe
shopping site by The Public Eye and also a member of Retail Canada.com. The
Canadian Cloth Diaper Association is a federally incorporated non-profit
organization.
2. Born to Love is monitored by The Public Eye. The
Canadian Cloth Diaper Association is a federal organization.
3. The work
quotes many reputable companies such as Proctor and Gamble and the Toronto Board
of Health so it seems that the authors are well informed.
4. The work was
published this year.
5. The company that published this article seems
reputable because reputable companies back it.
6. The work provides
documentation to support important points. After each quote the work cites the
source of the information.
7. No bibliography
8. The author is
probably prejudice because it is an association for cloth diapers.
9. The
web page is complete.
10. The website does contain links and they do
work.
Disposable Diapers Linked to Asthma. Mothering. Jan/Feb 2000. 35.
Health Source Plus.
Galileo. 30 Oct. 2000.
1. The source is a
respected magazine.
2. The source is credible because the article is on
the Galileo database.
3. The work contains evidence that the author is
well informed because it uses studies and doctors as its sources.
4. The
work was published this year.
5. A reputable magazine published the
work.
6. The work provides documentation from scientific
studies
7. No bibliography
8. The work does not contain evidence
that the author is prejudice.
McConnell, Jane. The Joy of Cloth Diapers.
Mothering. May/Jun. 1998. 42. Health Source
Plus. Galileo. 30 Oct.
2000.
1. The source is a respected magazine.
2. The source is
credible because the article is on the Galileo database.
3. The work
contains many statics and factual information.
4. The work was published
in 1998.
5. The Magazine Mothering is a reputable company.
6. The
work cites its quotes inorder to provide documentation of its support
material.
7. No bibliography
8. The work looks at both sides of
the issue. Why cloth diapers are good and bad.
McDiarmid, Catherine.
Environmental Concerns. Born to Love Diapering and Parenting Articles online. 30
Oct. 2000.
1. Born to love is certified a safe shopping site by The
Public Eye and also a member of Retail Canada.com. The Canadian Cloth Diaper
Association is a federally incorporated non-profit organization.
2. Born
to Love is monitored by The Public Eye.
3. The wok contains specific
numbers and facts indicating that the author is well informed.
4. The
site was last update on April 18, 2000
5. The company that published this
article seems reputable because reputable companies back it.
6. The work
does not provide documentation of support material.
7. No
bibliography
8. The author does not talk about the bad side of cloth
diapers.
9. The web page is complete.
10. The website does contain
links and they do work.
Reilly, Lee. The Diaper Debate. Vegetarian Times.
Mar. 1997. 90. Health Source Plus.
Galileo. 30 Oct. 2000.
1. The
source is a respected magazine.
2. The source is credible because it is
on the Galileo database.
3. The Author quotes many different sources of
information.
4. The work was published in 1997
5. The work was
published by the Sabot Publishing company
6. The work provides
documentation for support material.
7. No bibliography
8. The work
talks about how the greener choice for diapers may depend on where someone
lives. So, no the author is not
prejudice.