Cradle to Cradle Worksheet Answers

1. William McDonough states: "The fundamental issue is that, for me, design is the first signal of human intentions." 17:11
Do you share McDonough's viewpoint? Explain and use an example of a design that supports your position.

I agree with McDonough's viewpoint for the most part, however he moves forward and says "well, what would our intentions be as a species now that we are the dominant species?" and I disagree with his assumption that all humans carry the same intentions. On the other hand, I think the quoted statement is true, sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a bad way, depending on the actual intentions of the person. I believe that there is intention behind the creation of every product - whether that is to resolve a problem, satisfy a need, provide entertainment, simplify human tasks, and so on. One bad example is the rubber duck he explained at the beginning. It contained chemicals that were carcinogens but they were still labelled and sold as children's toys. The obvious intention of this was to make money, not to keep the safety of the users. Underlying intention is applied to every product big and small. Steve Jobs for example, he probably had the money making intention in mind, but his main intention was likely to create a product (computer, iphone, ipad, etc.) to make human life more enjoyable, easier, more efficient and convenient, as well as to advance our technology needs. Also, solar panels, whoever designed those likely knew that earths resources (ie fossil fuels) would not be able to support the human race forever and ever, so they invented something that would use solar power to produce electricity, something that would be more sustainable and environmentally friendly. On another note, I think there are several occasions where the designer has a good intention at heart, but they aren't aware of potential consequences or harm that may accompany those benefits. For example, pencil leads which make our lives much easier, but the led is harmful to our bodies, the designer probably didn't know this. The precautionary principle should be in place to ensure safety and the risks really have to be weighed and analysed against the benefits.


2. McDonough states: "What we realise today is that modern culture appears to have adopted a strategy of tragedy. If we come here and say, "Well, I didn't intend to cause global warming on the way here," and we say, "That's not part of my plan," then we realise it's part of our de facto plan. Because it's the thing that's happening because we have no other plan."
Do you agree with McDonough that we have a "strategy of tragedy" that is shaping the human condition? Why or why not?

I agree with McDonough that humans tend to have a "strategy of tragedy". Although often unintentionally and/or subconsciously, humans often go about their daily lives and do things without realising the effect that it has on our environment and community. I think there is also a mentality that we are doing nothing wrong if it is unintentional, and if it's something that everyone else does, then what different does it make? For example, driving cars. Cars are a huge contributor of global warming and pollution. Of course, people don't drive cars with the intention of killing the earth and polluting the environment and lungs of people in the community, they're driving cars for convenience. But they continue to do it, because they're not hurting the environment intentionally. Also, there often aren't short term, immediate effects, but rather gradual and long term effects...ultimately resulting in a tragedy in the environment. When people come up with new ideas and plans, they often focus solely on the end, "successful" results, and don't consider the whole picture, all the negatives that will come along with it. I think another example was the love canal tragedy. The Hooker Chemical Company were just looking for a place to dump their waste. They did not consider the fact that the toxic chemicals would leak out and seep into peoples homes. By trying to simplify their work by just dumping it into the river, they put many people at risk and created a huge and messy commotion.


3. McDonough believes that design determines our interactions with nature and how we value it. Is there evidence to support that view? Or does McDonough have it backwards, that nature actually shapes the way we design?

Personally, I think that McDonough has it backwards and that nature shapes the way that we design more so than our design shapes nature. I feel like there are a lot of things that nature does (like ecosystem services) that inspire humans to include into their designs. (A bit of a long shot), but I think the shapes of leaves are naturally formed so that water can run down them and these kinds of designs can be seen in some human designs. On the other hand, I can also see how some could argue that because the environment and the way it works is not something that we think about much because it was just "given" to us, designers don't really have it in mind when they design. I think they design more inspired off of other human designs. I also think the way that we value it sort of relates to the cradle to cradle design he mentions. There's a cycle that natural resources go through, like the food chain (kind of). Similarly, when our environment is healthy, so are we. Natures cradle to cradle design makes it apparent that nature shapes the way we design. Also, we have to keep up with our environment. If the world around us is changing, we have to change alongside with it. We design things to adhere what surrounds us.

4. Explain what cradle to cradle design is. Describe and use an example (provide a web link please) of what the two metabolisms are and what they do. Illustrations are welcome here - make the readers lose their minds!

Cradle to cradle design is the idea that we are playing in an infinite and ongoing game. It's a term that basically describes recycling, allowing materials to be recycled and reused, keeping them valuable and useful in the industry for as long as possible. It's a product that can be used, then used over and over again. It can be thrown away and recycled into something else. He described two metabolisms which were biological and technical. Biological metabolisms naturally reuse their resources, they are nature's nutrient cycles. Their materials are very easily broken down. They are the natural process of ecosystems. "The natural processes of ecosystems are a biological metabolism, making safe and healthy use of materials in cycles of abundance. A material used by living organisms or cells to carry on life processes such as growth, cell division, synthesis of carbohydrates and other complex functions" An example of a biological metabolism is a tree, because its materials are easily broken down and recycled by the natural environment.
A technical metabolism is a one way cycle. It can't recycle it's own materials. It's the process of putting products and their materials in a closed cycle, so they can be reused but not naturally. "the technical metabolism, designed to mirror the earth's cradle-to-cradle cycles, is a closed-loop system in which valuable, high-tech synthetics and mineral resources—technical nutrients—circulate in a perpetual cycle of production, recovery, and remanufacture" I think technical metabolisms are used more for like industrial purposes. A toothbrush could be a good example of this, because after it is used, it is thrown into a landfill and incinerated.

Example: G-Diapers https://www.gdiapers.com/
Example: Ice Stone counter surfaces http://www.c2ccertified.org/innovation-stories/icestone

The Hunt for PBDEs - Project Report

Academy Building & Location: Lovejoy Library - Fowler Learning Centre

Dorm/Home: Davis House Dorm




Example products: 









Concluding Questions:

1. Where (what kind of room) did you find the most flame retardant products?

As visible from my data charts, for a lot of products, I was unable to identify and prove that a product was flame retardant or non-flame retardant, however, if I were to single out one room, it would probably be the bedroom. Of the two products I found that did have labels, the mattress was one of them, and a dog pen was the other. I felt that the mattress represented the bedroom more so than the dog pen represented the common room. Although not visible on any labels, after doing some research, I also discovered that a lot of the clothing brands I have have been tested to contain flame retardant chemicals (The North Face, for example). The sleeping bag I tested was another item that, after looking online, I discovered was very likely to contain flame retardant chemicals. However, the common room has a lot of couches, which although weren’t apparent on the tag, likely contain flame retardant chemicals.

2. What was the most abundant product found to be dosed in flame retardants?

It was hard to decide how to answer this question, seeing as I only was able to find two labels that talked about flame retardants in the product. If I were to make an assumption that the sofa and the sofa cushions contained flame retardant chemicals, then I would say that the sofas and the sofa chairs (in both the library and the dorm) are the most abundant products found to be dosed in flame retardants. However, if I can’t fairly make that assumption, then I would have to go with mattresses. With 12 girls in the dorm, there are 12 mattresses, and this doesn’t even include the ones in our dorm parents home. However, I did have to check labels on two mattresses before finding the one that contained flame retardant chemical information, so saying mattresses as an answer to this question would still be assuming that although I only found the tag on one mattress, that it applies to all of the ones I didn’t check.

3. Examining your charts, which product do you think gets the most use from people?

It’s most likely that the mattress/sheets/pillows/blankets or the sofas get the most use from people. While clothing is worn every day, specific individual pieces of clothing are usually only worn once every few days. Sofas are used everyday by a variety of different people. With nine students living in the dorm sharing the sofas, they are definitely used very often. Beds (and everything on it) are used every night, as well as during the day when students need a nap or want somewhere comfortable to work or read.

4. Knowing that exposure rate, route of exposure and age of exposure are keys to determining toxic impact, which product generates the highest health risk? Which product has the lowest health risk? Explain why.

There are a variety of ways that humans can be exposed to PBDEs. It’s most likely that for most of the products I examined, the PBDEs enter our bodies through inhalation of absorption through contact with the product. I think that the bed (and sheets, pillows and blankets) generates the highest health risk for a few reasons. This is because when you sleep in the bed, you wrap yourself completely in products that are filled with PBDE chemicals. For those who sleep face down, they can be especially vulnerable with their face so close to the product(s) that contain and are releasing the dangerous chemicals. Furthermore, particularly in the case of the dorms, the bedrooms are relatively small spaces, which means there’s probably a higher concentration in the room than there would be in a bigger room, from the chemicals being released. Also, it is a stagnant item that rarely, if ever, leaves the room. I think of the products I examined, the product with the lowest risk is probably my suitcase. It isn’t used very often and there isn’t a ton of material on it. I would also say for me that toys are a relatively low risk due to their small size and my lack of exposure to them, but for young children, they could pose quite a high risk of inhalation and ingestion, especially for children who stick everything into their mouths.

5. After watching SAFETY ON FIRE, what would you suggest are some appropriate means to address the concerns of PBDE exposure?

The most obvious would be to avoid buying PBDE products whenever possible. It comes back down to the risk vs benefit test. It will be argued that buying non-PBDE products will increase your chances of death in a fire, and it’s also argued that buying PBDE products will increase your chances of cancer, brain problems etc. I think we should be more focused on avoiding cancer and health problems, because by buying PBDE products, we are lowering the already low chances of being caught and killed in a house fire. The chances of being killed by cancer are much higher than a fire, and by buying PBDE products, not only are we lowering already-low fire chances, we are raising already-high cancer chances. 85% + of people have had or have cancer in some form or another by their 80’s. Buying PBDE products will lower that age number. Even just buying products with natural fibers (such as cotton or wool) that are already somewhat flame resistant on their own and contain far fewer chemicals. Foam is the biggest concern of carriers of PBDE. Replace or make sure to cover up any cushions (or the like) if there is any exposed foam, and always try to avoid contact with crumbly foam. It is hard, though, to address the global concern, because it’s not so simple to just ban companies from using the product, and it’s not short of impossible to get everyone to agree that preventing cancer is more important than preventing fires.

6. What concerns and questions do you still have about PBDEs?

After doing this project and studying all the labels and tags of the furniture and items that we have, the biggest concern that I have is the lack of information provided to us about PBDEs in our products. Looking at the charts and bar graphs, I was only able to find two products that had labels addressing the issue. Some products had stacks of labels, but nothing about flame. Many products had tags that said they were made of “new materials” that are described in accordance with the law. Most of the tags just had washing instructions and materials on it. One even said "keep away from fire" but no other information on it. I think people need to be educated, because the reason why a lot of companies don’t think to include the information, is because most people don’t know of the problems or they don’t care because they don’t know the true effects it can have on them. Even with the labels, most of the time the labels are completely looked over, no matter what they say. My question, which ultimately is the big question of the project, is: is the risk and damage really worth the benefit? Also, looking at it the other way around, how much damage do PBDEs really do to our bodies? The effects aren’t so big that everyone notices them, but granted, it is hard to notice something when you don’t know the alternatives. I’m excited and worried at the same time to find out about the future of PBDE, how its usage may reduce or increase, and how it will affect future generations and the human race in general. Though the damage now, even to individuals, isn’t gigantic, in the long term, it could have major effects on our whole species.

I found this project really enlightening and challenging. It was interesting to get a closer look at all the products we surround ourselves with. The biggest challenge was definitely finding tags and labels with the information we needed, or even just finding tags in general (especially on furniture!). Even though we were able to find very little useful (to this project) information, I never usually look at tags when I buy things, so even though I didn’t see much about PBDEs, I did learn a lot about the materials and the washing methods of a lot of my clothing. When doing research around this project, it was also kind of scary to find out just how much we are surrounded by chemicals that we don’t even know about let alone acknowledge and actively deal with. This project had made me more aware of the things that surround me and of my body health.