In a carefully managed PR release, information of a presentation given at a Chicago environmental meeting reports a claim of reduced CO2 emission and lowered environmental impact from reusable sharps disposal containers in a study performed at a local Chicago hospital.

Contrasting the results from a life cycle assessment for single-use sharps containers and Daniels Sharpsmart reusable containers, claims are made of vastly improved environmental protection from the reusable option.

Daniels are masters of product advancement, but also of PR and the spin may be going a little too far. With questions of independence of the investigators, sample size and data evaluation and the competence of this life cycle assessment, multiplying the data to predict national or global savings with a reusable product are highly spurious.

It would be interesting data to read, especially after a thorough technical analysis and competent peer review prior to full publication in an authoritative peer-review journal. That should be the next step in the research program, though as yet ‘publication’ is a poster presentation only. Interestingly, at the same conference another presentation looks at the opportunities and savings from sharps bin recycling, to capture both the plastics and metals resource and not condemn it to incineration as with the Daniels model. Bear in mind, both early release publications are overtly, or perhaps a little covertly, commercial in nature.

Clearly there is along way to go and the jury hasn’t heard much of the evidence. Presently, we are offered little more that spin on top of very selective preliminary data used to support exaggerated claims.

For now, try a pinch of salt.