Talk:Styrofoam

Environment Issues

I have removed the following sentence "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states on its website: "Each year Americans throw away 25,000,000,000 Styrofoam cups. Even 500 years from now, the foam coffee cup you used this morning will be sitting in a landfill."[9]" from this section since at the start of the article they explain that expanded polystyrene cups are not styrofoam. The source of the sentence was http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/solidwasterecyclingfacts.htm if anyone is interested in putting it back. --Spuzzdawg (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced Facts

Why are there so many unsourced "facts" on this page? It looks like someone with a financial agenda has decided to attack this product. The user who posted that garbage should be banned for their obvious bias.

Aslo, why exactly have we gotton rid of all the citations? Aren't we supposed to be encouraging them in wikipedia?Mr. Recycle 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone using IP 206.40.109.91 blanked the page, and then someone "fixed" it by rewriting the intro of the old version instead of just reverting the blanking. I've restored the pre-blanking version; I think the ban information you added is already in there, but double checking wouldn't hurt. I didn't see any other additithis on the polystyrene page. I've made this back into a redirect to there, and moved the pertinent information. Maximus Rex 23:58, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Does Xerox redirect to photocopier? How about Kleenex to facial tissue? There's already a link to polystyrene, move the stuff about banning it in foods to Polystyrene#Dangers_and_Fire_hazard and let it be. EdgeOfEpsilon 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Xerox, the company, makes things other than photocopiers. Several paper products are sold under the brand name Kleenex. The name Styrofoam refers to one thing only: expanded polystyrene. FireWire (TM Apple) and iLink (TM Sony) and IEEE 1394 all point to the same page. Tylenol and acetaminophen are different pages, but again, there are multiple Tylenol products; acetaminophen is just the most popular. Merge if reasonably possible. 71.41.210.146 19:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Unless you can give me a good reason, I'm going to redirect this to polystyrene due to lack of infomation. —ScouterSig 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"The word styrofoam is often used by the general public as a generic term to indicate any brand of polystyrene foam." That phenomenon, how it came to be synonym with polystyrene foam, the explanation to our readers that it actually is that (not a brute redirect without telling anything, leaving the reader bewildered but that’s not what I clicked), the linking opportunity to read further about the company responsible for it and generalized trademarks itself, I think... suffice, to leave it be.--Van helsing 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Oh, and by-the-way, a lot of people don’t respond very well to ultimatums, creates this weird atmosphere of... well, lets make a battleground out of something I actually don’t really care about. hihi

The word "Styrofoam" is not commonly used in the UK: "expanded polystyrene", "polystyrene foam" or even just "polystyrene" is used. So "The word styrofoam is often used by the general public as a generic term to indicate any brand of polystyrene foam." is not true. Bazza 15:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to give information about the use of Styrofoam as a generic name, but the sections on Environmental Impact and Bans DO NOT belong in this article (they should be moved to polystyrene). Styrofoam has not been banned, what many people mistakenly refer to as Styrofoam has been banned. Unlike many genericized terms, the generic material referred to as "styrofoam" is considerably different from Styrofoam, both in structure, application and environmental impact. Wikipedia should be a source of unambiguous, correct (not common) knowledge.Silverchemist 17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed this line to specify the US view, it isn't common in the UK at least, where it's simply called polystyrene. I find it unlikely that non english-speaking countries use 'styrofoam' either.

---

Styrofoam is the trade name for EXTRUDED polystyrene. It is not EXPANDED polystyrene, so the article is currently using the wrong terminology.

-T

---

REDIRECT PLEASE, it took me too long to find the real styrofoam.

128.123.242.201 (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Production

I was curious about what method is used to assemble expanded polystyrene beads into a form. I checked the polystyrene article first and it mentioned this article. It seems appropriate since in america we refer to cups made out of expanded polystyrene beads as "Styrofoam". Does anyone have any information on the manufacture process, specifically are they glued together or heat formed or what? Thanks. 76.212.152.1 08:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Sandy

I will put something in the polystyrene article, but not in the Styrofoam article. Have a look at some of the previous talk. Polystyrene pellets containing a volatile blowing agent are heated in a closed mold. The pellets soften and expand as the blowing agent volatalizes. The expanded particles partially fuse due the heat of the process. Silverchemist 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image added Sept.13

I removed the picture showing a small piece of exposed Styrofoam insulation, which is a firecode violation. Even though this is explained in the caption, IMHO the relevance of the picture doesn't justify its inclusion (it would be better suited to an article on firecodes or fire safety). If someone had a picture of a partially constructed house with the Styrofoam still exposed, that would be a much more useful image in this article.Silverchemist 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC) My name is the orange crayola crayon and i hate styrofoam!!!

Environmental considerations

I deleted this section, since none of it is specific to Styrofoam (rather than polystyrene in general) and everything said in it was already covered in the polystyrene page. Dricherby (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

i dont like styrofoam. it sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.169.154 (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Often is used improperly"

I removed the word "improperly" from the final paragraph of the article, which used to read:

The word styrofoam often is used improperly by the general public in the United States and Canada as a generic term for polystyrene foam, such as coffee cups, cooler or packaging material, which are typically white and are made of expanded polystyrene beads.

I am adding this note here because I see that User:Silverchemist has recently reverted a similar change. The word "styrofoam" in American English does refer to the material used for coffee cups and packing material. This is not improper usage, it simply is current usage. It is not Wikipedia's place to prescribe proper English usage, but rather to describe current English usage. It might be appropriate, however, to make an additional note at the end of the paragraph to emphasize that the commonly-referred-to material is different from the Styrofoam brand material. walkie (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See List of generic and genericized trademarks#List of frequently misused trademarks, which includes Styrofoam.

Trademarks in this list are still registered as trademarks (except where noted), but are sometimes misused in a generic sense. The previous list contains former trademarks that no longer have legal status, while the following list comprises those marks which have been registered as trademarks, and which continue in use and are actively enforced by their trademark owners. It is improper to use these generically (except where noted by country).

None of these marks should be regarded as legally abandoned or in the public domain, and therefore each should always be capitalized. Writing guides such as the AP Stylebook advise writers to "use a generic equivalent unless the trademark is essential to the story."

So it isn't just Wikipedia, its style guides such as those used by newspapers and other media that say genericized "styrofoam" should not be used. Silverchemist (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't care about this enough to get in an edit war over it, but the fact remains that "styrofoam" is used in this genericized sense. It is a style guide's place to prescribe proper and improper usage--that is a style guide's job. As a repository of knowledge, it is not Wikipedia's place to prescribe proper and improper usage, rather to simply account how it is used. The best solution, I think, would be to note that the word "styrofoam" is used to refer to the material used for cups and packaging material, then also note (with a citation or two) that many style guides consider this improper usage since Styrofoam is a registered trademark.

The issue is not whether the use of genericized "styrofoam" is "proper" or not, the issue is that the way the sentence is currently written, Wikipedia is prescribing "proper" usage, which is not OK. The paragraph should be rephrased so that the current usage is noted, while also stating that style guides consider this improper usage. walkie (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to add a sentence with a link to the Genericized trademark page. This might get reverted but I'm just a casual IP user. -Bob 142.136.100.73 (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

hey

what if someone ate it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.148.155 (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Distinctive blue poop?

Maybe I am ignorant about Styrofoam, but what is this sentence supposed to mean?-

"The Dow product can be identified by its distinctive blue poop."

It's vandalism. Silverchemist (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you eat it...... Flight Risk (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Start a separate expanded polystyrene article?

If there are lots of editors confused about expanded polystyrene vs. Styrofoam, there must be even more readers who are confused. Would it help it we had a separate article on expanded polystyrene, rather just the section in polystyrene? Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that.Plhofmei (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

environmental issues

This article needs a section to discuss the environmental issues revolving around styrofoam. Kingturtle (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, because most of those issues are issues with polystyrene foam in general, not just Dow brand. Ccrrccrr (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

why do they make plates out of styrofoam when it can melt and get into your food

well guess what, instead of paper plates we had this darned styrofoam plates that contain styrene. I didnt know that if you reheat food in the microwave on them, that the styrofoam can melt parts of the plate into smaller peices. these peices can get mixed into your food or sauce. Then you can accidentally consume it because its flavored with the foods sauce, and not even realize it. Well this just now happened to me and im mad. someone write something to warn people. Who knows if ill digest the plate peices and get sick or not, but im still furious that this could happen. these companies have no business making plates out of toxic materials to BEGIN with. I hope someone sues the pants of kroger and other companies that make these plates! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the plate you were eating off (and later eating) was made of expanded polystyrene, not Styrofoam. Any plastic plate will melt eventually and you should check to see which ones are suitable for use in a microwave oven. Polystyrene is not toxic and the saying "this too shall pass" applies to ingested polystyrene. Kroger (the supermarket chain, I presume) does not manufacture polystyrene plates. Just out of curiosity, what food were you eating that could not be distinguished from polystyrene plate pieces? IMHO, no warning needs to go into this article.Silverchemist (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect image.

The image on this page appears to be a sheet made from expanded polystyrene balls. Styrofoam, the specific product, is a form of extruded polystyrene. Its is characterized by a fairly homogeneous porous structure, unlike expanded polystyrene sheets which are formed from compresses masses of expanded polystyrene balls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.124.110 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right; I removed the image as such. Wizard191 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Physical properties of Styrofoam or polystyrene

Does Styrofoam generally have the same melting point as polystyrene?

Or do different kinds of styrofoam have different melting points?

I live in Portland, Oregon, where it is very controversial putting polystyrene into the garbage. The local sanitation service gets mad at me when I attempt to put plastic bags into our garbage can. As for myself, I would like to recycle polystyrene, whether in foam form, or puffed pellet form ("peanuts"). I also happen to have a lot of plastic bags I want to get rid of. Or better yet, mix them together, melt it all down into a single liquid substance, and make something useful out of it. I want to point a heat gun at it, liquefy it, and pour the fluid down a funnel into forms. I was hoping Wikipedia would have an article on this sort of thing.

Is recycling polystyrene more dangerous than one might first think? 216.99.219.42 (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternate brand name Thermocol

I believe the correct spelling of the BASF trademarked name is "Thermocol" so i changed the spelling from "thermacol" which was in the article. Here is a reference to the brand name "Thermocol" that supports this reading. SageRad (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thermocol that I buy from market, is made up thermocol balls fused together

In India, the thing I buy from market on trade name thermocol, is a slab-like object made-up of fusing balls or beads containing the plastic-foam. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Move proposal

This should be moved to extruded polystyrene foam and styrofoam made into a disambig between extruded and expanded polystyrene foam. Ausir (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Great idea. Given that there's been no objection, I will move the current page to Styrofoam insulation, and make styrofoam a disambig. Wikiacc (¶) 20:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of hard for anyone to comment on a move proposal that you keep a secret. It's NOT a great idea. Now we've got a disambiguation page that is linked from 200+ articles that used to link to a relevant topic article. Please see WP:FIXDABLINKS. And we've got a disambiguation page that lists articles about (1) a material, (2) three different products made out of that same material, and (3) a musician. This is really a WP:TWODABS situation with a very clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree totally with Russ except for the last point. The three products listed are not made out of branded Styrofoam extruded polystyrene, but from the confusingly similar generic styrofoam expanded polystyrene. 120 articles link to sytrofoam (lower case s), and many such as Disposable tableware are referring to expanded polystyrene foam rather than Styrofoam insulation. Is there really a clear primary topic? Certes (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ausir and Wikiacc: if you're wondering about the sudden interest in this page, it's currently at the top of the Disambiguation pages with links list, which ideally would be empty. Certes (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether moving the page is a good idea, there is a normal procedure which was not followed and this has caused a complaint. Follow the normal procedure detailed at Wikipedia:Requested moves and establish consensus before moving the page again. Thanks. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry to everyone who had to clean up after this move; it was hasty and I didn't take the time to familiarize myself with the process at Wikipedia:Requested moves beforehand. The reactions suggest that this would be a controversial proposal even if done correctly. Although I fully endorse Certes's point above, it may suffice to check the incoming links regularly and change the ones intended for lower-case styrofoam. So, while I would vote to move if it were proposed, I will not be proposing it now. Wikiacc (¶) 01:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I went through the links to styrofoam (lower case) yesterday and diverted those that were obviously generic ("a styrofoam cup", etc.) to expanded polystyrene foam. A very few clearly meant the brand, so I gave those a capital S. That leaves about 90 wikilinks which should be changed one way or the other but I don't know the topic well enough to decide which. None of that work results from the page move, so thank you for highlighting an existing problem. Certes (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Odd

Is it necessary to say "Oddly enough" (second paragraph)?

Shouldn't it at least be explained why it is odd?

--Mortense (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)