Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Correction: the BMJ's plastic (not paper) wrapper
- Trish Groves (26 April 2008)
-
A time for leadership
- Paul J Mitchell (26 April 2008)
-
Brown paper recycles well
- Charles Oxley (26 April 2008)
-
Reducing carbon footprint
- Andrew I Inglis (29 April 2008)
-
Why not use brown paper
- Sarah C Rennie (7 May 2008)
|
|
|||
|
Trish Groves, Deputy editor BMJ
Send response to journal:
|
Something went wrong at the editing stage of Editor's Choice, implying that we might be able to use a mailing wrapper made of partly recycled paper, rather than plastic. The correct wording is:
"Finding 100% recycled paper for the cover that will not tear easily would save an additional 103 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. Failing that, we may be able to use partially recycled paper. We already use recyclable polythene for the wrapper and continually strive to reduce the amount needed..."
Apologies for raising hopes that we might be able to send the print BMJ out in a paper wrapper. Paper wouldn't keep the journal dry enough or protect it adequately from tearing.
Competing interests: I wrote the article |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Paul J Mitchell, Associate Lecturer Faculty of Education, Health & Sciences, University of Derby, Kedleston Road, Derby. DE22 1GB
Send response to journal:
|
I would ask the board of the BMJ to reflect on comments made in the 26 April editorial entitled "Reduce, reuse, recycle" below: "We have no plans as yet to stop producing a print journal. This would make the biggest contribution to cutting our carbon footprint, but we hear from readers who get the print journal that they don’t want to give it up." The threat to public health posed by climate change necessitates a paradigm shift in our thinking. Whilst transition of the BMJ to an entirely web-based format would represent one small step for a journal, this could catalyse a giant leap for the medical profession. Every day, the medical profession recommends countless patients to quit habits that threaten the individual's well being. If stopping production of the print journal offers the greatest opportunity to reduce the BMJ's carbon footprint then it is time for the readership to quit this particular carbon addiction. We currently lack the definitive evidence base on this matter. Accordingly, I would ask the BMJ to poll the entire readership on the simple question, should the BMJ demonstrate leadership on climate change to the medical profession by moving to a solely web-based format? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Charles Oxley, Retired GP New Buckenham, Norfolk NR162AG
Send response to journal:
|
In striving to reduce the use of plastic to wrap the BMJ, why not post it rolled up in a brown paper wrapper as was done a few decades ago? After his retirement my father tended only to look at the BMJ “to see who’s died”, but some copies remained unopened and were kept by the back door. He disliked marauding cats in his garden and found a rolled up BMJ was an excellent deterrent up to 20 yards. Competing interests: I get cats in the garden |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Andrew I Inglis, Consultant Anaesthetist Southern General, Glasgow, G51 4TF
Send response to journal:
|
I accept the BMJ has made (and continues to make) progress in this direction. I can also accept that there are those members that will always prefer to receive and work from, a print copy. There are I am sure, a large number of BMA members who would be perfectly happy with using only an electronic copy of the BMJ. I would suggest that this option be provided with the resultant cost saving in printing + postage either, 1) diverted to fund increased provision of the print copy in the developing world, or, 2) a reduction in membership costs to those opting for ‘no print version’ (similar to the reduction where couples opt to receive only one print copy). This should have the potential to produce a far greater reduction in carbon footprint than the measures taken so far? If the BMJ is serious about reducing environmental impact these points should be considered. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Sarah C Rennie, PhD student and surgical registrar Otago University, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Send response to journal:
|
I'm not sure I'm convinced about the argument of not using brown paper wrapper for the BMJ instead of plastic. We receive the National Geographic in pristine condition every month in a brown paper wrapper. If the BMJ is really interested in making environmentally friendly changes maybe it should do more research to ensure this is possible. Competing interests: None declared |
|||