Talk:Stone paper

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Materials

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Comparison with standard paper[edit]

There is a curious mixture of metric and non-metric units in this section and it does not fully agree with the reference. Biscuittin (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no actual comparison in the Comparison. From the preceding section, we know it contains no wood pulp, as it is made from calcium carbonate and HDPE. Still, those materials do not magically spring into existence ready to use. How many BTUs does it take to make a ton of stone paper? What solid, liquid and gaseous waste results from the manufacture of the raw materials (one of which is a petroleum product)? Without at least some facts on both sides of the scale, this section smacks of hand-waving. UglyMood (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have acted on this discussion. Not only was it not a comparison, and it can be argued whether a comparison to wood paper is at all relevant due to the quality differences, but should a comparison of emissions be made it should be made on a basis of equal densities, i.e. 1.6 kg stone paper to 1 kg wood paper. Northwind Arrow (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia to treat this product more fairly, the issue suggested below should be handled. In terms of recycling and decomposition "stone papers" compare badly with "wood papers" because they are part "stone" powder and plastic. When this 'paper' reaches end-of-life, it will either be recycled or discarded. If recycled, the user may inadvertently place this plastic paper in with paper pulp products, thereby contaminating the recycling stream. If this paper is placed by the user in with plastics, when the plastics are sorted on a trommel with human assistance, they will likely end up in the paper recycling stream. Also, the high stone content and low plastic content means that this "paper" will contaminate the plastics recycling stream, too. The manufacturer of these papers claims that they will break down and degrade under UV light. The HDPE does degrade, but only into smaller pieces of HDPE. There is no "bio"degradation of plastic. If buried in a landfill, away from UV light, this "paper" will stay intact indefinitely. Even when considering all of the energy and emissions that go into making regular paper, stone paper's persistence is enough to cause worry - there is simply no good way to get rid of this product once it is made. Stone paper is not a new idea - the Japanese tried this idea many decades ago. It never caught on because it was a bad idea. This time, stone paper is coming to you because it greatly reduces manufacturing costs for the Chinese companies that produce it. This URL gives a starting point for required references: http://www.wired.com/2013/02/stone-paper-notebook/ 75.37.16.246 (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]