Uh oh, false marketing on G diapers!!!??????? - Page 3

[mamamoo]

Originally Posted by Leilalu

I don't think they are better than disposables. My son had SEVERE reactions to the chlorine in our disposables up until he was 2 months old and I had done my research and had enough cd's to start on CD'ing completely. Seventh Generation has unbleached diapers and no chlorine was used, so I would still wager those as safer. You have no idea what a horrible toxic effect bleached paper products against your skin, when wet with urine, or against food, can cause.

gdiapers don't use chlorine bleach, and the waste doesn't sit in a landfill, they are better than sposies imo.

[Leilalu]

Originally Posted by MommytoWyatt

Hello,
I have been using cloth now for 18 mos on my son. Recently, under the advice of his pediatric urologist, we had to stop using cloth. His urethral opening got scar tissue from some sort of rubbing a while back. He went through a minor surgery and we are now sort of cloth-scared.

Anyway, he's been in sposies and I recently found this product. It is a good middle ground for me. First, I am not opposed to (after doing my research) using SAP. I am admittedly, probably much more mainstream than most here. I just haven't found anything that makes me believe it will be detrimental to my son. Second, if this product works for us, I plan to compost. So no extra water required other than flushing poopies which I do anyway. No, I'm not growing my kids carrots with them...but I like to flower garden and see no reason not to use this. SAP is found in many potting soils and actually reduces the need to water as often.

But what bothers me most about some posts here is the "us" against "them" tone. I just look at the big picture....those of us cding are in the minority. So if this product can just even get people thinking about the cost of diapering our kids on the environment...to me it is worth-while. In my research of this product, I've seen numerous discussion boards with the CEO of g diapers personally answering questions. It is my personal impression that these are parents who tried cloth and found another option that is at least more eco-friendly than disposables. And that to me is commendable. Just my humble mainstream-ish-ness opinion.

I don't think there is an "us against them tone" here. On the diapering boards here you will find some f the sweetest mamas around.

I think people on this board are very pasionate about cloth diapers, that is all. And just want everyone to see how wonderful they are.

I agree, creating awareness is good. However, I feel it's kind of a hit and miss with g-diapers. So much of thier info and angle is just incorrect and gives cloth diapering a bad name.

[Leilalu]

I wasn't saying they use chlorine bleach, just citing my experience. Some children just have very sensitive skin. Bleaching is bleaching IMO, and I just personally wouldn't risk it. I have also heard that g-diapers do not flush well.
I also do not like the idea of contaminating the water supply with the 'super absorber"

[boingo82]

Originally Posted by anniegirl

good points odenata. those things probably use more water than cds. ...

Flushing one older-model toilet: 6 gallons water usage
x 2 flushes per diaper (as recommended on gdiapers site) = 12 gallons water per diaper.

Running one load of laundry in top-load machine: 50-60 gallons.
Running the load twice (as most of us do, 1 wash 1 rinse..) 100-120 gallons water.

In other words, as long as you wash at least 10 diapers at a time, you are SAVING WATER over using Gdiapers.

That is not even COUNTING the water used in manufacturing the wood pulp and polyacrylate gel, or the water used in washing the covers.

[Mama~Love]

Wow, did you see what they wrote about SAP being "safe & effective in over 400 clinical studies.....safe for humans and harmless to the environment".

And here's the "study" they cite:

http://www.gdiapers.com/downloads/pd...AP%20study.pdf

Oh, it made my blood boil, let me tell you. It's 3 pediatric dermatologists & 1 pediatrician sharing their "experience and expertise on modern diaper technology". What a friggin' crock !

[Leilalu]

wow




Well, advocates of disposables will not cite all the info out there about how many children develop serious life-threatening rashes from diaper use. In fact, they cover up the fact that most children in sposies will at one time at least, have a very serious rash over the course of being diapered.

[odenata]

Originally Posted by teddybearmom

Wow, did you see what they wrote about SAP being "safe & effective in over 400 clinical studies.....safe for humans and harmless to the environment".

And here's the "study" they cite:

http://www.gdiapers.com/downloads/pd...AP%20study.pdf

Oh, it made my blood boil, let me tell you. It's 3 pediatric dermatologists & 1 pediatrician sharing their "experience and expertise on modern diaper technology". What a friggin' crock !

Check out the top of page 5 of this study - it's a chart of "diaper evolution." Us wool using mamas haven't made it out of the 1800s, it seems!

I tried to find some of the studies the article references, and couldn't. Also, it says 400 studies were done by investigators and the manufactures themselves (an unbiased group for sure) and they determined SAP was safe. They don't give actual details on the studies, and only a few studies are in the footnotes.

Then I looked up this article and found a detail missing from gdiapers.com's link: it was sponsored by the Personal Absorbent Products Council, a maker of SAP.

[odenata]

Originally Posted by boingo82

Flushing one older-model toilet: 6 gallons water usage
x 2 flushes per diaper (as recommended on gdiapers site) = 12 gallons water per diaper.

Running one load of laundry in top-load machine: 50-60 gallons.
Running the load twice (as most of us do, 1 wash 1 rinse..) 100-120 gallons water.

In other words, as long as you wash at least 10 diapers at a time, you are SAVING WATER over using Gdiapers.

That is not even COUNTING the water used in manufacturing the wood pulp and polyacrylate gel, or the water used in washing the covers.

Also, if you use a front loader, as many of us do, it's only 20-25 gallons a load, making it only 50 gallons a wash.

[AdinaL]

These aren't better than diposables, these ARE disposables. They are the same dang thing, just flushed.

Instead of putting the stuff in a landfill to sit, you flush the stuff down the toilet to be removed from the water supply.

I will agree that yes, better to have the human waste go into the toilet where things are in place to remove it.

But the fact is - you are disposing of them. They are still disposables, they are still getting thrown away. You still do NOT reuse them. The "better" part is only marginal.

[momsmyjob]

Originally Posted by AdinaL

These aren't better than diposables, these ARE disposables. They are the same dang thing, just flushed.

Instead of putting the stuff in a landfill to sit, you flush the stuff down the toilet to be removed from the water supply.

I will agree that yes, better to have the human waste go into the toilet where things are in place to remove it.

But the fact is - you are disposing of them. They are still disposables, they are still getting thrown away. You still do NOT reuse them. The "better" part is only marginal.

EXACTLY!!!

[boingo82]

Originally Posted by odenata

Also, if you use a front loader, as many of us do, it's only 20-25 gallons a load, making it only 50 gallons a wash.

Very true. I was just trying to compare worst to worst. You could also lower the water usage on the flushing by using a low-flow toilet. (Though that might require more than 2 flushes...)

[thorn]

I never used 2 flushes with them though. I think that part of the website that was quoted earlier, is in reference to if you are in doubt about the toilet's flushing ability (i.e. public toilet, etc)

can we give them at least "hybrid" credit? you do REUSE the outer little-g pant and liner. you only DISPOSE of the inner absorbent pad.

I only used them for 3 weeks, and switched to cloth. If they get other people to switch, isn't that a good thing? And if I ever had to travel majorly (like I recently spent 3 months in detroit taking care of a dying relative) then I would use them again as opposed to regular disposables.

[mamamoo]

Originally Posted by thorn

I never used 2 flushes with them though. I think that part of the website that was quoted earlier, is in reference to if you are in doubt about the toilet's flushing ability (i.e. public toilet, etc)

can we give them at least "hybrid" credit? you do REUSE the outer little-g pant and liner. you only DISPOSE of the inner absorbent pad.

I only used them for 3 weeks, and switched to cloth. If they get other people to switch, isn't that a good thing? And if I ever had to travel majorly (like I recently spent 3 months in detroit taking care of a dying relative) then I would use them again as opposed to regular disposables.

This was exactly my point. I still think it is a huge difference than sposies. These are not going into the landfills. The outsides of the dipes are not any worse than using any other pul/nylon type cover. I wish they didn't have the gel beads in them too, but I really believe it might be a gateway into cloth diapering. I am a *huge* cloth diapering advocate, use only natural fibers, and I can really see people using these instead of sposies.
Also using a non-chlorine bleach is much different than using chlorine bleach. Most people use sposies, and don't even have a second thought about it. It they see these in the stores, maybe they will use these for a while, and see that cloth wouln't be so hard or such a stretch. I don't know I am just glad to see another alternative to pampers and huggies out there.
Definately some hybrid points at least.

[Talula Fairie]

Originally Posted by Leilalu

I don't think they are better than disposables. My son had SEVERE reactions to the chlorine in our disposables up until he was 2 months old and I had done my research and had enough cd's to start on CD'ing completely. Seventh Generation has unbleached diapers and no chlorine was used, so I would still wager those as safer. You have no idea what a horrible toxic effect bleached paper products against your skin, when wet with urine, or against food, can cause.

Perhaps I should have specified. They are better than mainstream brand disposibles...you can't tell me that Pampers are better for the baby's skin --or the enviornment for that matter --than G diapers. And supposedly G diapers are not chlorine bleached, but I don't know that for a fact.

7th Generation still contains SAP. I'd go with Tushies (or even G diapers) if I were going to use sposies, but I never would. I'm a cloth addict

[Leilalu]

Originally Posted by Talula Fairie

Perhaps I should have specified. They are better than mainstream brand disposibles...you can't tell me that Pampers are better for the baby's skin --or the enviornment for that matter --than G diapers. And supposedly G diapers are not chlorine bleached, but I don't know that for a fact.

7th Generation still contains SAP. I'd go with Tushies (or even G diapers) if I were going to use sposies, but I never would. I'm a cloth addict

I guess I don't see how they are better for babies skin- I would have to try it on ds I guess, but I won't, so I guess I'll never know

I think there are still many ways to bleach a thing, and chlorine is not the only dangerous chemical used for the process.

Anyhew- I'm a cloth addict as well: Too bad others can't feel the cloth love like all of us....I find great joy in reusable items and feel some weird connection to all the women who have lived before me, such as my grandma who cloth diapered 12 babies

[mamamoo]

Originally Posted by Leilalu

I guess I don't see how they are better for babies skin- I would have to try it on ds I guess, but I won't, so I guess I'll never know

I think there are still many ways to bleach a thing, and chlorine is not the only dangerous chemical used for the process.

Anyhew- I'm a cloth addict as well: Too bad others can't feel the cloth love like all of us....I find great joy in reusable items and feel some weird connection to all the women who have lived before me, such as my grandma who cloth diapered 12 babies

Well, I don't think they would be any better for baby's skin than tushies, ir whatever, but definately better for the environment. I live where we have an incinerator, so every diaper that would go into a landfill is burned.
I wish they left eh pads unbleached too.
I am a total cloth addict, and feel the same connection as you do. I Love using reusable stuff too, it feels so good to know that I am not contributing to that waste.

[JeDeeLenae]

I like how they say putting it in the toilet is better because it doesn't end up in the landfill... It's still disposable, just via the toilet to me.

Maybe a good alternative for if you're traveling and can't wash the diapers... I'd probably use those before I use sposies again though.

But, I'm in love with cloth right now. I could easily sit all day on the computer looking at all the cute diapers... but I do have a 1 yr old running around here.

[mamamoo]

Originally Posted by JeDeeLenae

Maybe a good alternative for if you're traveling and can't wash the diapers... I'd probably use those before I use sposies again though.

yeah, me too. I have had to use sposies a couple of times. Onve during a very stressful, long move, and again when our washer broke for 3 weeks. I would definately use the gdipes over sposies. It is still disposable, but with less waste that sposies...

[lisabc311]

I emailed them once asking if I could purchase just the covers to use with my cloth.

The response was that it would be available to do so soon....but they would make purchasing *just* the covers MORE expensive than purchasing the starter pack (2 covers + 10 inserts) because they want to to try to convert cloth users to using them!

Gosh, well...at least they were honest.

[JeDeeLenae]

I was wondering why they suggest buying two starter packages right off the bat. It's only a $50 investment, but then you still gotta spend $52 on the liners every 1.5 months. And I wonder how durable those gpants are.