Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Hey all, I have a burning moral issue; I LOVE Miele vacuums, and other bagged machines (Kirby, Electrolux, Sebo, Sweden Electrolux), but HOW MUCH OF AN IMPACT do the bags and filters make on the environment?  ESPECIALLY Miele with all that unecessary plastic and metal on their bags and A LOT of unnecessary plastic on their filters?


What's your guys's opinion on this subject?

I would say not any more than the plastic off Dysons.

If you Love Miele vacuums then you'll automatically know that all of the dust bags have environmentally friendly materials. Or has this fact slipped you by? A fact that is documented in all of the current Miele user manuals.

For example look at http://www.scribd.com/doc/25037681/Miele-S5000-Vacuum-Cleaner-Manual on page 43:

"Genuine Miele dustbags and filters are made of environmentally friendly materials. They can be thrown out with the household trash provided the vacuum cleaner has been used only for normal household dirt."

A lot of products can claim they can be "thrown out", but doesn't mean they are environmentally friendly, however given it's Miele, and that they claim the bag is essentially "green", I can feel at more at rest, however it's still that plastic and metal in and on the bags and filters that makes me queesy feeling.


Are there any places you can take a bag to to either get it recycled or "emptied"?  Just curious.


But yeah, I think the Miele might be my next pick.  Either that or a Filter Queen B)

Hertz wrote:

Hi Hertz,

I share your concerns about the ecology but the healing of Earth -- if that can really be effected by mankind at this point -- calls for a much broader view of things.  By way of volume, there are far less vacuum bags discarded yearly than the tons of plastic tossed out by way of disposable diapers, plastic cups, bottles, food containers, toys and all manner of packaging material.  And that's just naming a few.  The niche vacuum brands you mention may probably be of less concern as they are generally priced to such a degree that only a portion of the public ends up taking one home.  Besides which, I kind of think that we yearly discard far more poundagewise through the cheap-fix vacuums meant to only allow us a year or two's use.

For anyone seriously desiring to commit to talking the talk and walking the walk in regard to bettering our environment there is only one thing to do.  Think about how you can make change begin throughout your personal environment.

Start first by considering the things you actually need, those you know you could live without -- or live with less of -- and what you usually end up buying by habit.  When we buy food out of season, do we consider the fuel cost and the pollutants released into the environment to get it to us sometimes from as far away as halfway round the world?

Talking vacuum cleaners -- right at the top of list would be getting on the recycling bandwagon by buying a used or rebuilt vacuum.  There's plenty around.  For those of a less delicate nature you can investigate as to whether there are permanent bag alternates for bagged machines or if a bagless machine has low maintenance costs.

OR begin re-using your disposable bags.  That's a practice I don't recommend but it would mean you might at least cut your disposable bag consumption in half during the course of a year.

If you must have a new vacuum then the thing to be thinking about is which might offer the least actual use of consumables.

What I have just said is not often attractive in a society where, God forbid, one micron of dust escapes capture or we should find ourselves deprived of the latest bell or whistle. Forutnately vacuum cleaners don't yet weigh in (pardon the pun) as much in the yearly picture of of discarded waste as do junked cars, discarded paper, etc.

The healing of self and the healing of the planet cannot be accomplished through a split approach to "treatment".  You have to stop, make an assessment of the whole picture and then begin trying to work toward effecting all around good as best you can.

Venson

Generally Miele's high filtration synthetic dust bags aren't re-useable and unless you buy an old Miele off EBAY with 1400 watts you can buy the cheaper brown paper bags. The cheaper paper bags however will burst in current Miele models as they are not used to the general higher suction motors.

vacmanuk wrote:

Hi vacmanuk,

I think they are re-re-usable but the argument for not opening and then attempting to re-seal them is the possible damage to your vacuum if the job's not done well.  Nonetheless, disposable vacuum bags are a small worry as far as the enviroment is concerned -- biodegradable or not..  If rest of the inhabitants of our planet were to follow the American model regarding consumption we'd need about five more Earths to hold all the junk.

Venson

Well, we'll just have to beg to differ about re-using Miele dust bags - the HyClean design is so fully packed with layers, original dust that was sucked up the first time won't all fall out. Thus when you re-use the bag it will fill up quicker. I guess its a small or short cost saving until you can get more bags but I wouldn't ever suggest that the HyClean design could be reused - removing the dust through the flap would be bad enough since it compacts around the bag and under those ribbons. If you cut them then the ribbons are through the dirt which is worse.

One could always buy an older "Vintage" Kirby or Hoover with a shake out bag.  You would not only be reusing, but no bags in the wastestream.

In actuality I think that bags are mostly made of paper or cellulose which are biodegradable, and the contents are . . . Well. . . DIRT. 

In my opinion there are far worse things harming our environment than cellulose and dirt.

Just wrote:

Again, PAPER bags are FINE! Heck, even just the cloth on the Miele would be fine, but it's that EXCESSIVE amount of plastic they use for the closing flap w/ metal on it. It's not even just the environment but it's WASTEFUL! I mean, with all the bags thrown out w/ that much plastic, you could probably make a 100 Miele bodies! At least, if it's the same plastic ;) Still though, I guess because Miele's are so damn well built and that they last forever and not gunk up the environment with HUGE amounts of plastic like cheap China-crap I guess the "burden" is VASTLY alleviated, but still, I just wish Miele would use cardboard for closing their bags instead of so much unnecessary plastic. Ugh.

For example! :http://www.amazon.com/Replacement-Miele-Galaxy-canister-vacuums/dp/B001G5MIWG/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1272503223&sr=1-13 BAM! Right there! Why can't Miele intelligently do that? They would work just as well if NOT BETTER because it would be the force of your strength closing it and not just some flimsy, sometimes unreliable spring door mechanism. Anybody ever use EnviroCare products? Any opinions on how they would compare to Miele bags?

Hertz wrote:

Can't answer in comparison to Miele as have never used one, but the EnviroCare bags are very good.  They appear to be a little more restrictive than the "clothlike" bags in Riccar Surpalite.  As I have stated before, I judge the restriction in a purely non-scientific manner.  The bag is firmer when squeezed, which is telling me that the air is not escaping as quickly.  My methods may be flawed, but works for me.