Poll: Is tubeless more toxic for the environment than tubes? What do you ride?

This poll will close on 08-11-2018 at 08:06 PM Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Results 1 to 56 of 56
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57

    New question here. How Toxic are Stans and other sealants for the environment?

    It seems pretty toxic if Stan says not to ever allow their products to come in contact with ground water supplies according to their US government-mandated safety data sheet. https://www.notubes.com/pub/media/wy...nt_SDS_GHS.pdf

    I felt like this was a great and informative Youtube video about the functional analysis of how tire sealant works and what the chemicals in the product does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO-l1zaSJvk - Sealant chemical analysis, pretty much same chemicals as Stans

    I ride a 29r Specialized Enduro fattie with tubeless currently, since that's what I had them fill my tires with, but now that my sealant is pretty much done bleeding out of the walls of my Butcher & Slaughter tires I'm going to go back to tubes. I think tubes are just more economical and less harmful to the environment overall.

    What do yall think?How Toxic are Stans and other sealants for the environment?-please-use-proper-tire-sealant.jpg

    I've put a poll in here too, please, very curious what people think and use!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,678
    In the end, some sealant might be far less toxic than the dozens of tubes and patching cement I would have thrown in the landfill if I was not using a tubeless setup. I think I have used one tube in the past six years. Have fun stopping 2-3 times during every tire to patch or replace all those heavy tubes youll have to lug around, instead of relying on a bullet proof (not literally bullet proof) tubeless setup.

    What brand of sealant did you have in there?
    Thorn in your Sidewall
    Vassago Jabberwocky

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,121
    So kinda like electric cars are more green? Not really. To each his own. I’m not going back to tubes

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,993
    enjoy your pinch flats—I’m never going back to tubes.

    The “environment” will be fine.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    orthonormal
    Reputation: andy f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,230
    Tubeless sealants are latex-based (natural), most tubes are butyl (synthetic). I used to go through 10-20 tubes a year, now I just top off sealant 2 times a year.
    The glass is twice as large as it needs to be

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57
    Why apply quotations to the environment we all belong to? I believe we all owe it to each other and to this planet to try and keep the planet as diverse and sustainable as possible. I really think people are contributing quite a bit of waste as individual consumers of industrialization-produced products.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57
    But they're not all latex-based and their composition is not actually mostly latex. Most of Stans, by their own account, is propylene gycol. So are butyl tubes better than pumping out tons of synthetic propylene gylcol? I'm curious....

    Anyways, propylene gycol is most definitely BAD for the environment. Like really bad. Not as bad as Benzene, but pretty bad for anything that lives in an aquatic environment.

    Per the wiki entry: Propylene glycol is known to exert high levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) during degradation in surface waters. This process can adversely affect aquatic life by consuming oxygen needed by aquatic organisms for survival. Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are consumed when microbial populations decompose propylene glycol.[52]:2–23

    Sufficient dissolved oxygen levels in surface waters are critical for the survival of fish, macroinvertebrates, and other aquatic organisms. If oxygen concentrations drop below a minimum level, organisms emigrate, if able and possible, to areas with higher oxygen levels or eventually die. This effect can drastically reduce the amount of usable aquatic habitat. Reductions in DO levels can reduce or eliminate bottom feeder populations, create conditions that favor a change in a community’s species profile, or alter critical food-web interactions.[52]:2–30

  8. #8
    B.Ike
    Reputation: ElwoodT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,134
    propyline glycol is a food additive.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Mratomix View Post
    But they're not all latex-based and their composition is not actually mostly latex. Most of Stans, by their own account, is propylene gycol. So are butyl tubes better than pumping out tons of synthetic propylene gylcol? I'm curious....

    Anyways, propylene gycol is most definitely BAD for the environment. Like really bad. Not as bad as Benzene, but pretty bad for anything that lives in an aquatic environment.

    Per the wiki entry: Propylene glycol is known to exert high levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) during degradation in surface waters. This process can adversely affect aquatic life by consuming oxygen needed by aquatic organisms for survival. Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are consumed when microbial populations decompose propylene glycol.[52]:2–23

    Sufficient dissolved oxygen levels in surface waters are critical for the survival of fish, macroinvertebrates, and other aquatic organisms. If oxygen concentrations drop below a minimum level, organisms emigrate, if able and possible, to areas with higher oxygen levels or eventually die. This effect can drastically reduce the amount of usable aquatic habitat. Reductions in DO levels can reduce or eliminate bottom feeder populations, create conditions that favor a change in a community’s species profile, or alter critical food-web interactions.[52]:2–30
    Your understanding of environmental impact is based upon a Wikipedia page? Not claiming to be knowledgeable on the subject myself, but there's a lot more to it than X is bad for the world.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by ElwoodT View Post
    propyline glycol is a food additive.
    Unsafe levels of arsenic are found regularly in apples and rice, doens't mean an additive is a good thing just cause it's food I feel like.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57
    I mean, I know a bit about ecosystem sustainability, having high levels of dissolved oxygen in water means shit loads of algae blooms that kills fish and even invertebrates which form the basis of a the trophic order in the watersystems this world depends on. I think anything that contributes to high levels of biochemical demand and dissolved oxygen in an aquatic ecosystem isn't goodl.

  12. #12
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,757
    Are you looking for discussion or to give a lecture? Seems you’ve already answered your own questions. Enjoy your tubes.
    Just like a raindrop, I was born to fall.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Mratomix View Post
    Unsafe levels of arsenic are found regularly in apples and rice, doens't mean an additive is a good thing just cause it's food I feel like.
    But it is safe as a an additive, at least according to the CDC?

    https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=12&po=14


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    9,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Mratomix View Post
    I think tubes are just more economical and less harmful to the environment overall.

    Then you should use tubes, however I think for most people tubeless is more economical and less harmful to the environment because it nearly eliminates flats and drastically cuts down the need to buy spare tubes.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Mratomix View Post
    I mean, I know a bit about ecosystem sustainability, having high levels of dissolved oxygen in water means shit loads of algae blooms that kills fish and even invertebrates which form the basis of a the trophic order in the watersystems this world depends on. I think anything that contributes to high levels of biochemical demand and dissolved oxygen in an aquatic ecosystem isn't goodl.
    Here is some more detail. I don’t know if you may be lumping it in with ethylene glycol? The latter is dangerous and does not take much to poison a person?

    In any event, I am still rolling tubeless.

    https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1120&tid=240


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,678
    I think OP is more interested in lecturing us on a topic that he's already made up his mind than considering the alternatives. tubes are wasteful and destructive in their own way. I'd gladly use a tubeless sealant that is less toxic, but I doubt that the overall effect of patching and throwing away dozens of tubes every year is less harmful than the effect of a drop or two of sealant on the ground.

    I work for a organization that educates the public about environmental issues, so it could be an interesting topic for me to research, but such a tiny fraction of my audience are tubeless cyclists that it would not be worth my time.

    everything we do has an effect on the environment, but I doubt that tubeless seating makes even the tiniest dent in your overall carbon footprint. there a loads of things that are much more destructive related to everyday life:

    your diet
    how far you drive every day
    the size of your home
    what you do with that packaging from stuff you buy
    the kind of car you buy
    the amount of stuff you buy and where/how it was made

    on the bike- how often do you buy used parts, parts made locally, parts made from heavier but more durable materials? I am under the impression that carbon fiber is an environmental nightmare, but I don't know much about that.
    Thorn in your Sidewall
    Vassago Jabberwocky

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Mratomix View Post
    What do yall think?Click image for larger version. 

Name:	please-use-proper-tire-sealant.jpg 
Views:	104 
Size:	132.2 KB 
ID:	1207894
    I guess you were too busy pontificating to answer my question, so I'll ask again: what kind of sealant is that? if you buy crappy sealant and it gets wasted, that's part of the problem.

    It looks kind of green. If that is the new Slime sealant, yeah, that stuff sucks and is therefore wasteful and loust for the environment.
    Last edited by mack_turtle; 1 Week Ago at 10:49 AM.
    Thorn in your Sidewall
    Vassago Jabberwocky

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,849
    If you want to help the environment, sell your bike and send the money to a third world country so they can get water filtration equipment. And hike, preferably barefoot. Manufacturing anything is bad for the environment.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    311
    PG is used as a solvent for the latex. A lot of it is going to evaporate before it comes out of the tire. It is, overall, a pretty benign chemical, but does have the surface water effect noted. That is mostly a concern at airports, where hundreds of gallons of it are used to deice aircraft.

    Five ounces of sealant in a tire is going to contain about 2 ounces of PG, most of which will evaporate over time, before the sealant is disposed of (it's the evaporation of PG that renders the sealant non-functional).

    It's also kind of viscous, so unless you dump it right in a stream or pond or lake, it's going to have some trouble getting into water. Unless it's diluted with water and used in great quantity, as in the case of aircraft de-icing.

    So, yeah, it's of some concern, but relatively minor compared to the environmental costs of tubes.

    MSDS require quite a bit of context to interpret. If you went by them, you'd never leave the house and never buy anything.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: kubikeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by Mratomix View Post
    ...I think tubes are just more economical and less harmful to the environment overall...
    I think you're nuts! Propylene glycol decomposes and breaks down in a few days to maybe a week. A rubber tube takes years to do the same, and rubber dust, when airborne, is very toxic. Propylene glycol is soluble in water, which is why they warn against it coming in contact with streams or sewers. I hate to break it to you, but this chemical is in everything from road deicers to your Dunkin Sweet Tea. Yeah, really. Keep using that sealant, just don't, you know, pour the bottle in a stream or anything.
    The cake is a lie.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    69
    Quote Originally Posted by MSU Alum View Post
    If you want to help the environment, sell your bike and send the money to a third world country so they can get water filtration equipment. And hike, preferably barefoot. Manufacturing anything is bad for the environment.
    ^This is truth. If you are REALLY concerned with the world environment, you could also organize efforts to prevent Asian countries from dumping waste (some toxic) in "our" oceans.

    You can do small things to help along the way but you can't single out and berate a form of pollution while contributing to other types of pollution. Mack_turtle hit on it too.

    If you choose to key in on one type of pollution, you need to be ALL IN, lest you be mistaken for a hypocrite.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,678
    I don't think you need to knock yourself out for every moment of your life if you're concerned about the environment to avoid any hint of hypocrisy. finding a topic that you're passionate about and sticking to it is worthwhile. otherwise, you'd spend every moment of your life fretting about everything and not have time to do anything positive about it.

    this rabbit hole about tire sealant chemicals, however, is a red herring. if you're concerned about the carbon footprint of your cycling hobby, look elsewhere to lessen your impact.
    Thorn in your Sidewall
    Vassago Jabberwocky

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    650
    Quote Originally Posted by kubikeman View Post
    I think you're nuts! Propylene glycol decomposes and breaks down in a few days to maybe a week. A rubber tube takes years to do the same, and rubber dust, when airborne, is very toxic. Propylene glycol is soluble in water, which is why they warn against it coming in contact with streams or sewers. I hate to break it to you, but this chemical is in everything from road deicers to your Dunkin Sweet Tea. Yeah, really. Keep using that sealant, just don't, you know, pour the bottle in a stream or anything.
    Yep. OP's wiki reference is in regards to airport spraying tons of the stuff on runways to deice them. The 2-4oz in your tires are not a concern for aquatic life.

    I think the real issue is perception. OP sees the liquid sealant as 'harmful chemical ooze' and the solid butyl tubes as something else.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57
    I was looking for people to refute me with science and factual anecdotes actually.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    Yep. OP's wiki reference is in regards to airport spraying tons of the stuff on runways to deice them. The 2-4oz in your tires are not a concern for aquatic life.

    I think the real issue is perception. OP sees the liquid sealant as 'harmful chemical ooze' and the solid butyl tubes as something else.
    I'm open to having my opinion changed. The overall impact of Stans and tubeless on the entire bike market across the world on the environment can't be insignificant. I'd love a study showing actual environmental impact of butyl tubes and tubeless solutions.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Gator Bait View Post
    ^This is truth. If you are REALLY concerned with the world environment, you could also organize efforts to prevent Asian countries from dumping waste (some toxic) in "our" oceans.

    You can do small things to help along the way but you can't single out and berate a form of pollution while contributing to other types of pollution. Mack_turtle hit on it too.

    If you choose to key in on one type of pollution, you need to be ALL IN, lest you be mistaken for a hypocrite.


    I'm definitely a hypocrite if the definition of a hypocrite is anybody who isn't perfect and isn't a canonized saint. I'm a human in a modern society, I shop on amazon sometimes, I drive a car, I could support local businesses more, I could use less plastic and eat less meat. I could do a lot of things. One thing I'd like to do, in addition to lots of other things that I'm already doing or looking into doing, is to figure out if Stans and all other tire sealants are worse for the environment in aggregate than butyl tubes are, pound for pound, cubic litre for cubic litre

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57
    I'd be interested in seeing whatever research you come up with. I'm not interested in lecturing people, I'm interested in the overall impact tubeless sealant solutions have on the industry and on the environment as a result of that industry. Industrial de-icing solutions for plans using propylene glycol are definitely not great for the environment. There are tons of planes in the world and most need to be de-iced regularly, I'm sure that's a large impact. There are billions of bikes on this planet, hundreds of millions of them have tubeless sealant solutions, or will in the next 5,10,15 years. It would be worthwhile to study and understand that impact I think.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Mratomix View Post
    figure out if Stans and all other tire sealants are worse for the environment in aggregate than butyl tubes are, pound for pound, cubic litre for cubic litre
    We/ I just find it strange that you picked this particular topic first. It seems quite low on the list of wasteful and damaging aspects of the bicycle industry. Anyone who rode before tubeless tires became possible, reliable, and available can tell you how much waste tubes create.
    Thorn in your Sidewall
    Vassago Jabberwocky

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    650
    Quote Originally Posted by Mratomix View Post
    I'm open to having my opinion changed. The overall impact of Stans and tubeless on the entire bike market across the world on the environment can't be insignificant.
    Nothing you provided suggest that it would be significant from scientific standpoint.

    Butyl rubber is a petroleum product (unlike natural latex). Also butyl rubber is the main raw material in your tubes but not the only one. It contains oil (probably aromatic), processing aids and curatives. Rubber processing is also extremely energy intensive. Rubber waste is also a known significant environmental issue.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    937
    As someone who is extremely environmentally conscious, as in I just changed my shampoo to Free and Clear, because the cocamidopropyl betaine was irritating my face and neck, and even the damn Johnson & Johnson Baby Shampoo was doing that too, if you can believe that...I will tell you that Stans and Slime are non-toxic. Now I would not drink it or anything, but if some gets on my skin I wipe it off later and don't worry about it. There are a million chemicals out there more toxic than bike tire sealant. You probably eat 100 different chemicals every day that are more toxic. Seriously. If you are worried about stuff like this, read every ingredient list of the stuff you eat and drink first...
    Hypercritical is good. Hypocritical is bad. Nice people can still be bad people.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    We/ I just find it strange that you picked this particular topic first. It seems quite low on the list of wasteful and damaging aspects of the bicycle industry. Anyone who rode before tubeless tires became possible, reliable, and available can tell you how much waste tubes create.
    I have no doubt tubes are wasteful. I just want to know what is MORE wasteful and costly, both to the consumer for their direct benefit as an inflation solution, and to the overall environment.

    I just want to know the impact.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    9,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Mratomix View Post
    I was looking for people to refute me with science and factual anecdotes actually.
    1 8oz bottle of sealant seems to last about as long as 10 tubes for me. I realize that isn't science, or even a factual anecdote. Just a plain old anecdote. I do know that I used to patch or replace tubes about once a week or so and now I don't.

    Anyway I guess I'm somewhat of an environmentalist too but I accept the fact that mountain biking is inherently bad for the environment, as are most recreational sports. The positives far outweigh the negatives though so I don't fret about it.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    9,881
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    As someone who is extremely environmentally conscious, as in I just changed my shampoo to Free and Clear...
    if you were extremely environmentally conscious you wouldn't use shampoo
    I brake for stinkbugs

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    9,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Mratomix View Post
    I have no doubt tubes are wasteful. I just want to know what is MORE wasteful and costly, both to the consumer for their direct benefit as an inflation solution, and to the overall environment.

    I can say for sure that I spend way less maintaining tubeless than I used to when using tubes. Less cost and less maintenance time is the main reason I prefer tubeless.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    I can say for sure that I spend way less maintaining tubeless than I used to when using tubes. Less cost and less maintenance time is the main reason I prefer tubeless.
    Appreciate your contributions man, yeah I'm starting to be swayed into thinking tubeless is the no-brainer way to go actually. I've read a couple more articles about how polluting standard butyl tubes are and damn, I had no freaking clue about that industrial waste creation they make. It's HUGE!

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    225
    This thread is funny I was always felt sooo guilty tossing tubes in the trash before I went to tubeless.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,044
    Quote Originally Posted by TwiceHorn View Post
    PG is used as a solvent for the latex. A lot of it is going to evaporate before it comes out of the tire. It is, overall, a pretty benign chemical, but does have the surface water effect noted. That is mostly a concern at airports, where hundreds of gallons of it are used to deice aircraft.

    Five ounces of sealant in a tire is going to contain about 2 ounces of PG, most of which will evaporate over time, before the sealant is disposed of (it's the evaporation of PG that renders the sealant non-functional).

    It's also kind of viscous, so unless you dump it right in a stream or pond or lake, it's going to have some trouble getting into water. Unless it's diluted with water and used in great quantity, as in the case of aircraft de-icing.

    So, yeah, it's of some concern, but relatively minor compared to the environmental costs of tubes.

    MSDS require quite a bit of context to interpret. If you went by them, you'd never leave the house and never buy anything.

    Listen to this.
    On MTBR, the reputation is infamous.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    225

    How Toxic are Stans and other sealants for the environment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus View Post
    Listen to this.
    Yup when I read the MSDS stuff it reminds me of the pharmaceutical commercials on TV and after hearing the warnings you think to yourself the condition is better than the cure they are trying to sell you! You know “may cause vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, suicidal ideations, or in rare cases death”


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: targnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,610
    The sky is falling!!!

    We FUBAR'd this planet a long time ago o_0

    Death by a gazillion cuts =(

    'Born to ride!'
    "Mountain biking: the under-rated and drug-free antidepressant"

  40. #40
    .
    Reputation: RustyIron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    543
    Quote Originally Posted by Mratomix View Post
    I think tubes are just more economical and less harmful to the environment overall.
    I cry when I think of all the ecological damage that went into making your bike--mining the iron, smelting the metal, chemicals into the air from the plastics and the paint. And then there are the plants and animals that you kill whenever you ride in the wilderness. I definitely think you should give up riding your bike.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,273
    One time generation of waste is significantly different than continuous generation, so that's not really valid.

    I generate less waste with tubeless setups. I haven't thrown away a tube in a while. I rarely pincture, so I'm not spraying sealant anywhere except maybe my garage floor.

  42. #42
    EAT MORE GRIME
    Reputation: 127.0.0.1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    3,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Mratomix View Post
    But they're not all latex-based and their composition is not actually mostly latex. Most of Stans, by their own account, is propylene gycol. So are butyl tubes better than pumping out tons of synthetic propylene gylcol? I'm curious....

    Anyways, propylene gycol is most definitely BAD for the environment. Like really bad. Not as bad as Benzene, but pretty bad for anything that lives in an aquatic environment.

    Per the wiki entry: Propylene glycol is known to exert high levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) during degradation in surface waters. This process can adversely affect aquatic life by consuming oxygen needed by aquatic organisms for survival. Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are consumed when microbial populations decompose propylene glycol.[52]:2–23

    Sufficient dissolved oxygen levels in surface waters are critical for the survival of fish, macroinvertebrates, and other aquatic organisms. If oxygen concentrations drop below a minimum level, organisms emigrate, if able and possible, to areas with higher oxygen levels or eventually die. This effect can drastically reduce the amount of usable aquatic habitat. Reductions in DO levels can reduce or eliminate bottom feeder populations, create conditions that favor a change in a community’s species profile, or alter critical food-web interactions.[52]:2–30
    well you know what is worse ? tube patch cement vapors. cancer causing. ozone depleting. the extra energy and resources to make and ship you a tube to put inside the tire, and supply infrastructure around that. pick your arguments, but this one is LOL low grade beef. also I read somewhere tubes are made from kittens, so ....there's that
    "Put your seatbelt back on or get out and sit in the middle of that circle of death." - Johnny Scoot

  43. #43
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,264
    What is a few bicycle tire goo drops compared to the antifreeze and oil leaks from tens of millions of vehicles?

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    9,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Schulze View Post
    What is a few bicycle tire goo drops compared to the antifreeze and oil leaks from tens of millions of vehicles?

    What are antifreeze and oil leaks from tens of millions of vehicles compared to 1 nuclear waste dump :P
    I brake for stinkbugs

  45. #45
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,264
    Worse

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    9,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Schulze View Post
    Worse

    Debatable but I was joking.

    I understand what you mean though, when I had a shop we generated what seemed like a ton of rubber waste and I would diligently separate it and periodically haul it to the recycle dump. After unloading I would look at my tiny, insignificant mound of bicycle rubber perched atop a mountain of car tires and think, "why bother?"
    I brake for stinkbugs

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,921
    I gotta think the environmental impact of producing, transporting, packaging, storing and cooking/processing the food calories you burn riding is way bigger than that of producing and disposing of your bike and riding gear.

    The best thing you can do for the environment is off yourself.
    Do the math.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    I gotta think the environmental impact of producing, transporting, packaging, storing and cooking/processing the food calories you burn riding is way bigger than that of producing and disposing of your bike and riding gear.

    The best thing you can do for the environment is off yourself.
    Hard to argue this. Difficult to imagine the effort it takes to fully offset the waste and consumption a typical human is responsible for, let alone offsetting the entire population...

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    9,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    I gotta think the environmental impact of producing, transporting, packaging, storing and cooking/processing the food calories you burn riding is way bigger than that of producing and disposing of your bike and riding gear.

    Do cyclists really consume more calories than sedentary people? It doesn't appear to be the case.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: R_Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    864
    And on the PG argument, how many automobiles are driving around full of antifreeze?

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: foresterLV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    145
    there are "eco" labeled sealants out there, without latex (and associated disolvers I guess).
    had good experience with Joe Eco something, its seems to be cheaper than Stans (per liter, amount of sealant per tire seems to be different though - so total cost could be the same) and sealed fat bike tire without a problem so far. no punctures yet.

    Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,816
    Both sealants and tubes have countless layers of manufacturing to produce the ingredients to make these products. It’s probably safe to assume nobody here (myself included) truly knows the environmental impact of each these products.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    I gotta think the environmental impact of producing, transporting, packaging, storing and cooking/processing the food calories you burn riding is way bigger than that of producing and disposing of your bike and riding gear.

    The best thing you can do for the environment is off yourself.
    a friend colleague did an analytical piece on this and it was interesting to see that more fit and this type of activity did more “harm.”

    harm is rarely defined or estimated with any rigor, so to me it is more religion or nonsense.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  54. #54
    Keep on Rockin...
    Reputation: Miker J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,378
    A classic fart in a windstorm proposition.

  55. #55
    Oaktown Honkey on Strava
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,646
    I love Bay Area Spare the Air days, they tell me not to BBQ, but refuse to have one less Boeing 747 land at the airport. What a joke. I am a house painter, and some of my customers in Tiburon have $800 a month water bills. Im not worried about 32'oz of STANS I use in a year. Its nothing compared to the $350 I spend on diesel every month, now THATS not awesome for the environment. I guess you have to choose your battles.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sherwin24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    402
    I'm surprised Outside magazine hasn't already covered this topic and condemned the practice of tubeless on their facebook page.

    If the EPA can blow up an abandoned mine and dump enough chemicals into the Animas River to turn it muddy bike bling orange and then say two days later "it's cool, the river cleaned itself", I'm good with dumping an ounce or two of stans once or twice a year if it keeps me rolling.

Similar Threads

  1. Question about sealants
    By allu in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-12-2016, 08:43 PM
  2. 2014 Toxic Design Lab show and shine
    By rismtb in forum Vintage, Retro, Classic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-11-2014, 09:13 AM
  3. Tubeless Sealants for cold weather
    By nwont sasquatch in forum Fat bikes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 06:55 PM
  4. Homemade Tire Sealants or Brews
    By doctorholguin in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-26-2013, 03:31 PM
  5. sealants to use in tubeless
    By roy harley in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-07-2011, 09:36 PM

Members who have read this thread: 180

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.