This submission claims that "traditional banknotes which are based on special and expensive paper suffer from poor tear properties and they have limited life", and touts tallow-dependent plastics as a solution.
US currency is made of a cotton-linen blend, so (pedantically) it is not paper. Per US Currency Education Program [1], "it would take 4000 double folds, forwards and backwards, to tear a banknote". Is this insufficient for UK uses? In my wallet I currently have a couple hundred in US currency from years 2003 to 2014. None of them are falling apart. (The US Federal Reserve [2] estimates that US currency lasts between 4.7 and 22.9 years, depending on denomination.)
Given the societal shift to digital payments, cards, etc, is the UK hoping to create banknotes that last until the end of time or something? (If so, plastics are probably a great choice. But I'm guessing that indestructible bills will eventually become quite economical to counterfeit, so you'll still want to cycle through security measures every few years.)
Old UK banknotes, made of 'paper', had no real durability issue.
I think the key benefit of polymer notes is the opportunity for far more security features. Holograms, Prismatic effects, braille printing, variable transparency, etc.
Also, they're probably cheaper, considering most of Europe uses polymer notes too.
The UK had issues with banknote forgery, so a change over to a new base material makes a good clean cutoff to say "no paper notes are valid anymore", which cuts off forgers too.
The US also has major note forgery issues, but to my knowledge they have never taken serious action against fake notes. If they did, they would probably switch to polymer too.
Even more pedantically, paper made from cotton and linen is paper by most definitions.
Wood pulp paper is by far the most common these days, but that's surprisingly recent (mid-19th century). Before that it was mostly cotton, linen and hemp.
They say “paper” but it was a cotton blend much like USD. They’re shit talking old notes because it’s good for business. I haven’t touched cash in a while but I don’t recall any meaningful difference in the durability of “paper” GBP and USD.
Edit: the additional context for this article is at the time the notes were released, there was a lot of anger when people discovered the notes contained animal products.
> In my wallet I currently have a couple hundred in US currency from years 2003 to 2014
Confusingly enough the year on US Bank Notes is not when they were printed. For example, the current series is "2017A", which started being printed in 2019.
> "it would take 4000 double folds, forwards and backwards, to tear a banknote". Is this insufficient for UK uses?
When I was in the US I've often was given heavy worn out banknotes sometimes with tears. Haven't seen so many badly damaged pounds so may be dollars can benefit from more durable material too.
Another interesting additive in many plastics is glass fibres or beads, they are often used to strengthen the plastic and give it slightly different mechanical properties. The downside of the glass fillers is that they erode the tools much more quickly (glass is very abrasive), kind of the opposite of Tallow which helps to keep the plastic flowing over the surfaces better.
On glass filled parts you will often see a small ring around the "gate" (gates are where the plastic is injected). The gate is under enormous pressure and has a very high flow rate through it, so it tends to erode significantly more quickly. To counter that the gate is often an inserted part that can be changed out easily when servicing the tool, or made from a higher toughened grade of steel. Hence a small ring, a witness mark of where the join is.
Which is why it's only used in certain parts that would benefit from having glass filling, like tools for instance. You also pay for it anyways; I would be surprised if any of the consumer grade Ryobis from Home Depot had glass fiber reinforced polymer cases, while a Hilti almost surely does if not metallic.
Perhaps the main thing about tallow is that there's a glut of it, likewise lard. People want more and more meat, but want it to be leaner, creating a surplus of tallow. Also, its use in deep fryers, e.g., by the fast food industry, was curtailed when vegetable oil became preferable in the market.
A relative of mine worked in a chemical factory in Detroit, that made lubricants for metal working. Many of them were either formulated directly from tallow and lard, or were soaps. The materials were cheap, they worked, and were considered to be relatively non-toxic.
One thing I've noticed is that detergent based "soap" has disappeared from the market. It used to be that you could get detergent bars that contained no soap. They also didn't produce soap scum in hard water areas. Remember, "You're not really clean until you're Zestfully clean." Well, Zest was a detergent bar.
Today, looking for detergent "soap" at the store, it's gone. Even Zest is made from lard or tallow, last time I looked at the ingredients. I've banned soap from my house because I hate cleaning up the soap scum. We use liquid body wash instead.
I was curious, and found the ingredients for a 1992 bar of zest from an eBay photo. It was a mix of soap with the detergent sodium cocoglyceryl ether sulfonate. The current recipe is all soap but they added a couple of chelating agents: Pentasodium Pentetate, and Tetrasodium Etidronate. The problem with the new recipe is these chelating agents suck. The only thing that can jail Mg/Ca2+ faster than soap scum forms is sodium triphosphate, but that is no longer allowed and doesn’t belong in bar soap. It makes no sense that they changed the recipe.
Detergent products have gotten so bad that I have started mixing my own. I add STP to laundry and dishwasher powder and I never rinse dishes before putting them in the dishwasher. They come out sparkling. The whole phosphate thing is overblown. Phosphates promote algae growth, but the algae also breaks down loads of other contaminants. The problem can be mitigated with a simple fountain in the discharge pond.
Removal of STP from everything is great for plumbers as pipes are now all lined with sticky soap scum which means periodic snaking.
I have a question, I live in a soft water area so I'm not familiar with the problem.
Would you have the same issue if you were using vegetable oil-based soap (e.g. Marseille soap, Castile soap etc.)? Or is any type of "fat" going to cause the same issue?
The likely reality is that shifting to a replacement will just result in the animal product being dumped. It's likely a byproduct of meat consumption that is inexpensive to use because there is lots of meat consumption.
Another 'huh?' product that contains animal derived ingredients are various dryer sheets (they don't all, but many do).
Our cat goes nuts for some plastic bags - licking and licking them like they’re the best thing ever.
Granted he’s a little weirdo, but I looked into in on the off chance there was something wrong with him or the plastics could be harmful, but the only thing I could come up with was that some bags have more tallow in them than others and that was what he was reacting to.
So, therefore, tallow in plastic = tasty for cats.
For obvious reasons, the use of beef tallow has been particularly offensive to some Hindus. Some have even banned the new banknotes from temples: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-38195265
The phrase "There are alternative options such as non-animal fats and hydrocarbon waxes, but these might increase the cost of production, reduce efficiency, affect recyclability and finally negatively affect the environment."....
....is such a semi-randomly grab-bagged set of statements similar to a set of nigh-unverifiable closing statements made as a desperate last-ditch attempt at proving a point in a debate that I feel it significantly weakens the article's stance, not strengthens it.
For example, with people with religious and moral objections to using animal products along governmentally-supervised transactional lines, whataboutism involving other parts of the supply chain/where animal products are used don't really serve to prove the point -- again. In turn, if we were to use this bit of what I'd consider to be somewhat faulty logic, the bank notes could be used as leverage in the future as the example in a list of products that uses animal products, just as other items in that list are being used as leverage today.
As for my position -- sometimes I eat meat, sometimes I don't, but I'd like to please avoid flesh in my money, however miniscule.
Anything from a corporation saying “fearful” (for your wallet) things like “may cost more to produce(costing you more)” or reduce efficiency (costing you more) etc…
Is just reworded excuses as to the corporation’s choosing profit. For they will never say “profit us less.”
This piece avoids mentioning why it was written- around this time, it came to light that new UK bank notes contain beef tallow so are problematic for Hindu and vegan people who rightly have problems with these replacing old paper notes.
I remember when I visited my friend in Cambridge (UK) we ate at a quite cool vegetarian restaurant. I was surpised at the time that they had a policy of not accepting 5 pound banknotes. Later I learned that this was a protest against the tallow content of those notes.
"This process of using fatty acids derived from animal fats has become headline news as different groups have protested against the use of animal products in the production of the new £5 note."
I think they mean feed stock animal fats not whales. When you eat that hamburger there’s a ton of left over animal fats. Given the animal is dead, the worst you could do is not use its remains in the most productive way possible. Otherwise why did it die?
I'm the only one that is horrified by tallow? Why do they have to stick animal parts in everything? fsck animal products. Just hunting them, raising them in deplorable conditions, eating them, wearing them and causing global pandemics with them is not good enough? I'd only accept the use of tallow if it was derived entirely from non-virgin human fat, humans that died naturally, of course, and were allowed to sit in hot and humid conditions until fully rancid but before desiccation. Maybe now you know how I feel.
[+] [-] ccooffee|3 years ago|reply
US currency is made of a cotton-linen blend, so (pedantically) it is not paper. Per US Currency Education Program [1], "it would take 4000 double folds, forwards and backwards, to tear a banknote". Is this insufficient for UK uses? In my wallet I currently have a couple hundred in US currency from years 2003 to 2014. None of them are falling apart. (The US Federal Reserve [2] estimates that US currency lasts between 4.7 and 22.9 years, depending on denomination.)
Given the societal shift to digital payments, cards, etc, is the UK hoping to create banknotes that last until the end of time or something? (If so, plastics are probably a great choice. But I'm guessing that indestructible bills will eventually become quite economical to counterfeit, so you'll still want to cycle through security measures every few years.)
[1] https://www.uscurrency.gov/about-us/currency-facts [2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-long-is-the-life-spa...
[+] [-] londons_explore|3 years ago|reply
I think the key benefit of polymer notes is the opportunity for far more security features. Holograms, Prismatic effects, braille printing, variable transparency, etc.
Also, they're probably cheaper, considering most of Europe uses polymer notes too.
The UK had issues with banknote forgery, so a change over to a new base material makes a good clean cutoff to say "no paper notes are valid anymore", which cuts off forgers too.
The US also has major note forgery issues, but to my knowledge they have never taken serious action against fake notes. If they did, they would probably switch to polymer too.
[+] [-] rsynnott|3 years ago|reply
Wood pulp paper is by far the most common these days, but that's surprisingly recent (mid-19th century). Before that it was mostly cotton, linen and hemp.
[+] [-] phphphphp|3 years ago|reply
Edit: the additional context for this article is at the time the notes were released, there was a lot of anger when people discovered the notes contained animal products.
[+] [-] ac29|3 years ago|reply
Confusingly enough the year on US Bank Notes is not when they were printed. For example, the current series is "2017A", which started being printed in 2019.
[+] [-] kwhitefoot|3 years ago|reply
Perhaps it isn't paper in the US but rag paper is quite definitely paper in the UK.
[+] [-] citrin_ru|3 years ago|reply
When I was in the US I've often was given heavy worn out banknotes sometimes with tears. Haven't seen so many badly damaged pounds so may be dollars can benefit from more durable material too.
[+] [-] samwillis|3 years ago|reply
On glass filled parts you will often see a small ring around the "gate" (gates are where the plastic is injected). The gate is under enormous pressure and has a very high flow rate through it, so it tends to erode significantly more quickly. To counter that the gate is often an inserted part that can be changed out easily when servicing the tool, or made from a higher toughened grade of steel. Hence a small ring, a witness mark of where the join is.
[+] [-] doubleg72|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hammock|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] analog31|3 years ago|reply
A relative of mine worked in a chemical factory in Detroit, that made lubricants for metal working. Many of them were either formulated directly from tallow and lard, or were soaps. The materials were cheap, they worked, and were considered to be relatively non-toxic.
One thing I've noticed is that detergent based "soap" has disappeared from the market. It used to be that you could get detergent bars that contained no soap. They also didn't produce soap scum in hard water areas. Remember, "You're not really clean until you're Zestfully clean." Well, Zest was a detergent bar.
Today, looking for detergent "soap" at the store, it's gone. Even Zest is made from lard or tallow, last time I looked at the ingredients. I've banned soap from my house because I hate cleaning up the soap scum. We use liquid body wash instead.
/rant
[+] [-] jcampbell1|3 years ago|reply
Detergent products have gotten so bad that I have started mixing my own. I add STP to laundry and dishwasher powder and I never rinse dishes before putting them in the dishwasher. They come out sparkling. The whole phosphate thing is overblown. Phosphates promote algae growth, but the algae also breaks down loads of other contaminants. The problem can be mitigated with a simple fountain in the discharge pond.
Removal of STP from everything is great for plumbers as pipes are now all lined with sticky soap scum which means periodic snaking.
[+] [-] giantg2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mastazi|3 years ago|reply
I have a question, I live in a soft water area so I'm not familiar with the problem.
Would you have the same issue if you were using vegetable oil-based soap (e.g. Marseille soap, Castile soap etc.)? Or is any type of "fat" going to cause the same issue?
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] progbits|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|3 years ago|reply
Another 'huh?' product that contains animal derived ingredients are various dryer sheets (they don't all, but many do).
[+] [-] mattkevan|3 years ago|reply
Granted he’s a little weirdo, but I looked into in on the off chance there was something wrong with him or the plastics could be harmful, but the only thing I could come up with was that some bags have more tallow in them than others and that was what he was reacting to.
So, therefore, tallow in plastic = tasty for cats.
[+] [-] userbinator|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] c7DJTLrn|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bee_rider|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2OEH8eoCRo0|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonhansel|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ipsum2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derbOac|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tbalsam|3 years ago|reply
....is such a semi-randomly grab-bagged set of statements similar to a set of nigh-unverifiable closing statements made as a desperate last-ditch attempt at proving a point in a debate that I feel it significantly weakens the article's stance, not strengthens it.
For example, with people with religious and moral objections to using animal products along governmentally-supervised transactional lines, whataboutism involving other parts of the supply chain/where animal products are used don't really serve to prove the point -- again. In turn, if we were to use this bit of what I'd consider to be somewhat faulty logic, the bank notes could be used as leverage in the future as the example in a list of products that uses animal products, just as other items in that list are being used as leverage today.
As for my position -- sometimes I eat meat, sometimes I don't, but I'd like to please avoid flesh in my money, however miniscule.
[+] [-] flandish|3 years ago|reply
Is just reworded excuses as to the corporation’s choosing profit. For they will never say “profit us less.”
[+] [-] andylynch|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krisoft|3 years ago|reply
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/03/vegetarian-r...
[+] [-] 100pctremote|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] b1ue64|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meindnoch|3 years ago|reply
Rightly?
[+] [-] ggm|3 years ago|reply
Castrol wishes to be remembered to you.
Meanwhile, whales are breathing a sigh of relief
[+] [-] fnordpiglet|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Maursault|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oldgradstudent|3 years ago|reply
Is this Kosher? Halal? What about the implications for Hindu or Vegans?
It might seem silly for the rest of us, but for them is a matter of life and death.
[+] [-] Eleison23|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stadt|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krisoft|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klipt|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] autoexec|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Redoubts|3 years ago|reply
I feel as tho the article ended right when it got to the question at hand.
[+] [-] kwhitefoot|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] realworldperson|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hamilton987|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]