[HN Gopher] PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments
___________________________________________________________________
PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments
Author : goesup12
Score : 222 points
Date : 2022-12-04 18:03 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cyclingnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cyclingnews.com)
| throwaway892238 wrote:
| I must be a weirdo.... I just wear lots of wool, and a thin
| windproof/rainproof jacket with armpit zips. I get sweaty but I
| stay warm (as long as I'm moving)
| ip26 wrote:
| What is the rainproof part made of?
|
| Not everyone has the option of "just don't stop moving".
| jmull wrote:
| Wool + wind shield is actually pretty hard to beat.
|
| The modern materials can be effective while being very light
| weight and take up little space. But I think these are much
| more niche concerns than most people like to acknowledge.
|
| I think the real reason the modern materials are more popular
| than wool+ is that they are more profitable when marketed, and
| hence are heavily marketed.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| The problem is most wind shields are equivalent to wearing a
| plastic bag. The moment you start sweating, it creates a
| terrible, sticky, humid environment.
| girvo wrote:
| As someone who lives in QLD Australia, I'm used to that
| sticky humidity I guess -- the rare times I need to deal
| with cold _and_ wet, wool and a wind shield jacket is
| fantastic for me. Very different environment than most
| others in this thread though I think.
| senderista wrote:
| For active use, you'll often stay drier under a water-
| repellent treated breathable fabric that doesn't pretend to
| be waterproof. With most "waterproof/breathable" fabrics,
| you'll get soaked from the inside long before you get
| soaked from the outside.
| halpmeh wrote:
| Wearing a waterproof shell gets you pretty steamy. Apparently
| this ShakeDry fabric is actually breathable. I wear wool +
| shell (note, waterproof shells likely contain PFCs), but I
| hate how humid it gets. I'm very intrigued by ShakeDry after
| reading this thread.
| adultSwim wrote:
| I would love to see a return of waxed canvas as an outer shell
| material.
| olivermarks wrote:
| Given that many cyclists also have deep climate anxieties and
| conservative (with a small'c') attitudes it sounds as though
| 1970's era pvc coated nylon and cotton will make a resurgence
| olivermarks wrote:
| Whilst PVC is most frequently made from salt and oil, in some
| regions of the world PVC is made without using oil feedstock at
| all (substituting oil-derived hydrocarbon with bio-derived
| hydrocarbon feedstock). PVC is therefore far less oil-dependent
| than other thermoplastics.
| hammock wrote:
| PE same thing...
| numpad0 wrote:
| > "Introducing New Gore-Tex Products with Innovative Expanded
| Polyethylene (ePE) Membrane for AW22" didn't exactly catch my
| eye. I sent an email out to Gorewear and asked about it, but
| there was nothing to test and it fell off my radar.
|
| > As it turns out, that press release was a big deal. Expanded
| polyethylene is the future of the Gore product line.
|
| That sounds reasonable, and by the way, today I learned we were
| so casually wearing Teflon clothing all the time just to be
| comfortable in rainy days. That's atomic.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Why is this demonization of Teflon aka PTFE? I mean yes PFOA
| and PFOS are pretty bad, but PTFE should be pretty safe if you
| don't overheat it. I mean I just purchased a non-stick cooking
| pan and it contained PTFE coating; should I be worried now?
| halpmeh wrote:
| Cooking in Teflon cookware been associated with liver cancer.
|
| More generally, ingesting anything your body can't break down
| doesn't end well. It typically builds up and causes cancer.
| E.g. asbestos, silica lung, stomach cancer from chewing
| tobacco, etc.
| girvo wrote:
| Make sure you don't scratch it, and don't overheat it. There
| are studies that appear to show it might not be ideal even
| following that, but it's not completely clear I think. It
| should be fine if you treat it correctly
| s0rce wrote:
| I think the issue is more in manufacturing and disposal not
| use. Don't overheat your pan and you are fine. The garments
| also used PFAS based coatings for water repellent coatings
| which are also bad.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Don't overheat the pan you use to cook food with heat?
| topaz0 wrote:
| Yes. i.e. 400-500F is much more likely to be harmful to
| health than 300F. This is why teflon pans are not a good
| choice for things like searing meat, where you really
| want the surface to be very hot. Of course, you can still
| do plenty of cooking at 300F.
| danuker wrote:
| "At normal cooking temperatures, [Teflon]-coated cookware
| releases various gases and chemicals that present mild to
| severe toxicity."
|
| https://nutritionfacts.org/video/stainless-steel-or-cast-
| iro...
| [deleted]
| sgt101 wrote:
| Well, not my waxed jacket..
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Wow there's definitely a money making opportunity to hang on to
| and resell any goretex shakedry (single layer goretex, Columbia
| had a similar thing called out-dri). There's really nothing else
| like it that's as light weight and water proof yet breathable as
| it was. People paid a premium for it when it was in production.
| The value is going to skyrocket if it's not available new
| anymore.
| Jolter wrote:
| I don't think the material lasts long enough to have multiple
| users. My experience of ptfe and related chemicals is that they
| wash out and the material degrades over time worth wear, so
| they don't stay water-repellent very long.
|
| If they didn't degrade quickly, they wouldn't be such a threat
| to the environment.
|
| Edit: Sorry, I didn't mean PTFE above but PFC.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Goretex isn't a coating though, at least with their membrane
| stuff like shakedry. The fibers themselves are PTFE. It
| doesn't wash away over time. As I understand it the
| environmental risk with these jackets is from the production
| process and PTFE use there. Once it's a membrane it's inert
| and stable.
| Jolter wrote:
| Sorry, I meant PFC. I've edited the comment.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Yeah you're thinking of older style goretex membrane
| laminants. They'd have 2 or 3 layers with a goretex
| membrane inside and an outer shell of non-waterproof
| fabric to protect the goretex. The outer shell would be
| treated with a PFC spray to make it water resistant and
| keep from soaking up and holding water (which makes the
| inner goretex layer not breathe).
|
| Goretex shakedry came out a few years ago and changed
| things dramatically, it's just one layer of the
| unprotected raw goretex membrane. No need for coating
| with PFC and much, much lighter than the laminants. It's
| not as durable so there are some trade-offs but for
| people that can work with its limitations it is
| incredible waterproof tech. It's what we always wished
| rain gear was--light, breathable, waterproof.
| Jolter wrote:
| I can't reconcile that with what the OP states: "While
| the Shakedry fabric has been great for its
| characteristics as a cycling jacket (waterproofness,
| breathability and lightweight), the membrane also
| contains PFOA [ed. Perfluorooctanoic acid] chemicals, and
| Gore is dedicated to being PFOA-free by 2025[...]"
|
| Certainly seems like shakedry is being phased out because
| it contains a (banned) toxic chemical. What am I getting
| wrong?
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Like I said creating the PTFE is the problem and where
| restrictions are being placed on those manufacturers.
| Jolter wrote:
| I can't find that in the article. Do you have a source
| for it?
|
| Regular gore-Tex is still on the market and it's also
| based on PTFE so I must assume it's the special
| formulations in Shakedry that are now banned. I e
| whatever PFOA is.
| cwkoss wrote:
| If the fibers are ptfe, isn't it harming the environment as
| it is worn and sheds microparticles? And every time it's
| washed?
| flybrand wrote:
| I believe what makes this different is a coating layer on
| top of the traditional PTFE.
| loeg wrote:
| I suspect you'll see knockoffs without the Gore brand. It was
| too effective and the original goretex patents have expired.
| flybrand wrote:
| The number of global PTFE producers is limited - yes, there
| will be knock off apparel layers, but there are less than a
| dozen producers of the base layer. Many of them are preparing
| for a post-apparel world given the new restrictions.
| schappim wrote:
| The amount of ads on this page is nuts.
| josephcsible wrote:
| I wish that we'd come up with a replacement that's just as good
| _first_ , and only then phase out the original. As an example of
| the right way to do things, consider that nobody banned leaded
| avgas before the FAA found and approved a safe unleaded
| formulation.
| swagmoney1606 wrote:
| It sounds like Gore Fabrics actually has a replacement in the
| works though.
|
| "Introducing New Gore-Tex Products with Innovative Expanded
| Polyethylene (ePE) Membrane for AW22"
|
| Anyways the other stuff is extremely harmful to the planet.
| There are other (less effective) waterproof materials in the
| meantime.
| Jolter wrote:
| You realize this stuff is actually /toxic/, right?
|
| Can you come up with a single incentive that would make the
| industry invent non-toxic alternatives faster than a ban on the
| toxic substances would?
| josephcsible wrote:
| Tetraethyl lead was actually toxic too. What incentive led
| the avgas industry to replace it before it was banned?
| Jolter wrote:
| Not sure what point you're trying to make with that. I
| don't know this stuff but I know how too look it up on
| Wikipedia, and it looks to me like it was phased out
| because regulators threatened a ban:
|
| "In November 2008, National Air Transportation Association
| president Jim Coyne indicated that the environmental impact
| of aviation is expected to be a big issue over the next few
| years and will result in the phasing out of 100LL because
| of its lead content.[45]
|
| By May 2012, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA
| Unleaded Avgas Transition rulemaking committee) had put
| together a plan in conjunction with industry to replace
| leaded avgas with an unleaded alternative within 11 years."
| loeg wrote:
| It also seems like using these things in items like jackets is
| a lot less problematic than using them in ski waxes, which by
| design erode from the ski and get distributed in the
| environment. Jackets more or less stay in one piece.
| Jolter wrote:
| The ski waxes use pretty small amounts, as I understand it.
| Anyway, they are indeed being phased out from ski waxes in
| many places/contexts. The FIS are phasing them out from all
| competitive skiing, to begin with.
| loeg wrote:
| My impression is that the international ski bodies (FIS et
| al) have fully banned the substances at this point. No
| phase out.
| oostevo wrote:
| The ban was postponed, as I understand it, as they work
| through ways to catch people cheating by still using the
| substances.
|
| https://www.fis-ski.com/en/international-ski-
| federation/news...
| loeg wrote:
| Oh, interesting, I hadn't heard that. Thanks!
| rodgerd wrote:
| "We should keep poisoning the planet until it's convenient for
| capitalism" is a very unsurprising take on HN, but
| disappointing nonetheless.
| siftrics wrote:
| "I wish that we would keep getting cancer until ..."
| wyre wrote:
| For anyone not familiar with what makes Shakedry so revolutionary
| is its ability to be waterproof, highly breathable, and
| incredibly lightweight. Its weight and breathability make it
| incredible for active sports like cycling or running. These
| jackets weigh around 100-150g depending on features and size and
| can pack into the pocket of a cycling Jersey, all while being
| waterproof and preventing the athlete from overheating.
| [deleted]
| jupp0r wrote:
| The tradeoff here is that it's very prone to abrasion. You
| can't currently use this technology for purposes like hiking
| because backpack straps, scraping against rocks etc would put
| small holes in the external membrane. Perfect for cycling
| though!
| hammock wrote:
| Shakedry is just a bare goretex membrane, as far as I
| know...aka without the outer shell fabric.
|
| Not sure it's revolutionary.
|
| You reduce weight and bulk by eliminating the outer fabric but
| at the expense of abrasion resistance. Why it works for road
| cycling but not much else.
| askvictor wrote:
| | Why it works for road cycling but not much else.
|
| My guess is that road cyclists have a tendency to buy new
| gear on a shockingly frequent basis, so if your jacket only
| lasts a year it's not really a problem.
| s0rce wrote:
| And you don't wear a backpack on a road bike.
| sligor wrote:
| Road cyclists don't wear backpack and don't touch rocks or
| branches like most other outdoor activities. Backpack +
| body movement will rub and wear out the naked goretex
| membrane quickly. And of course, rocks and branches will
| cut it.
| Jolter wrote:
| If the article is right, Shakedry is also heavily treated
| with perflourated toxic stuff. On the outside, presumably.
| jk7tarYZAQNpTQa wrote:
| Like every Gore-Tex product.
| loeg wrote:
| Yeah, I just got one this year and it's amazing. Around 100g,
| super rain resistant and breathable.
| acdha wrote:
| > waterproof, highly breathable, and incredibly lightweight
|
| This is basically the way most outdoors products have been
| marketed since the previous century so I'm not sure how much
| we're actually talking about here. What I was hoping to see in
| that article was something more quantitative -- does "heavy and
| doesn't breathe as well" mean something is 20% heavier or 200%,
| etc.?
| keitmo wrote:
| For years I've said "any clothing manufacturer that promises
| something is both 'waterproof' and 'breathable' is lying to
| you".
|
| Shakedry actually delivers on this promise.
|
| FWIW I do endurance cycling in the Seattle area, a.k.a. "The
| Pacific NorthWET". We tend to stress the hell out of
| waterproof clothing.
| acdha wrote:
| Interesting. I had the same rule of thumb but haven't
| followed the field closely since the early 2010s.
| 1MachineElf wrote:
| In Florida, living between the coast and the everglades,
| rain is a daily occurrence. Having grown up there for 20
| years, I feel that rain doesn't phase me at all.
|
| I have questioned the averseness northerners have towards
| getting wet. Living in Maryland now, so many I've
| interacted with will just not go outside all day if there
| is rain. They've been raised by parents who've trained them
| to wait for the rain to stop, to postpone yardwork, to
| waste time and space fiddling with umbrellas.
|
| Is it just a comfort thing, or is there a real advantage to
| waterproof/breathable clothing?
| markdown wrote:
| > I feel that rain doesn't phase me at all.
|
| Me neither, but I live in Fiji. I suspect I'd absolutely
| hate the freezing rain of the Pacific Northwest.
| s0rce wrote:
| Cold vs. warm rain is a huge difference. I lived in
| coastal California and road my bike to work all year, it
| could be 40F and raining, if you don't have a waterproof
| jacket you'll be freezing really fast. You'll be sweaty
| inside because they don't breathe perfectly but you won't
| freeze. In warm tropical rainy places you can just get
| wet from rain and not really worry.
| rhinoceraptor wrote:
| Getting wet is one thing, getting wet in the cold for
| hours on end is another. For example, the onset of trench
| foot can happen in under 12 hours.
| salawat wrote:
| It's all fun and games until you're just above freezing
| and soaking wet. Wet in the south is something completrly
| different from wet in Florida.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| My guess is that it's a suburban thing. People are almost
| always 'indoors', home or car. The standard for what's
| acceptable outdoor weather is high.
|
| Visit a northern urban downtown. You will see plenty of
| people who pay little attention to the rain - not even
| rain jackets or umbrellas. They just go about their day.
| irrational wrote:
| When I lived in south Florida, it would rarely rain 24/7.
| I now live in the PNW where it does rain 24/7 for about 9
| months of the year. And it is cold.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| As others have pointed out, getting we when its 40F can
| quickly turn into hypothermia really fast. You can also
| get sweaty, then cold on a 40-50F day in a rain jacket if
| you're moving around a lot. Being cold and wet is no
| joke.
| Sharlin wrote:
| > Florida
|
| Have you ever been out in the rain at 0degC? Or even
| 10deg? Do you even _know_ what it is to be cold and wet?
| thorncorona wrote:
| Comfort. Also being wet in warmer temps doesn't really
| cause you to get sick more vs cold temps.
| bradlys wrote:
| Rain when it's 40F out hits different. It's not 70 and
| raining. It makes you much colder.
| cwwc wrote:
| I get this -- but in the Lakes district (England) or
| anyplace in Scotland, rain at 40F is still common yet
| folks are unperturbed and continue their daily outdoor
| activities.
| projektfu wrote:
| It's amazing how effective a wool sweater and coat can be
| in those situations. They're very breathable and
| hydrophobic. I don't think they'd work for the pro
| cyclist but they're great for the layers-oriented worker.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| I haven't been to Florida for many years but this was my
| experience, when the rain drops it's like being in a
| shower. You keep wearing light summer clothing so you dry
| out quickly even if you get caught.
| syncsynchalt wrote:
| Having spent the last fifteen years cycling daily, rain
| at 1C / 33F is colder than snow or ice at any
| temperature.
|
| I'd rather be in -20C temps than wet in rain at just-
| above freezing temps.
|
| Florida rain is not comparable.
| paulcole wrote:
| This is what makes ShakeDry so revolutionary. The nonsense
| brands have been saying about waterproof and breathable is
| actually real.
|
| I've done 30 mile runs in the pouring rain w/ my ShakeDry
| jacket and come out "dry" at the end. The material never wets
| through. The only downside for me is that it does wear "warm"
| so I mostly wear it in under 45F degree weather -- which
| coincides nicely with Portland's rainiest weather.
|
| My jacket was around $300 and more than worth every penny.
| fpoling wrote:
| I remember US army like 10 years ago compared different
| fabrics and have found eVent was performing significantly
| better than Gore Tex. Does ShakeDry really better than
| alternative according to some realistic tests?
| bsimpson wrote:
| Obligatory FortNine:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtCdQfbLw7o
|
| For those who don't know, FortNine is a YouTube channel
| from a Canadian motorcycle gear seller. Their producer
| has a physics background and makes excellent videos. Like
| xkcd, there's a relevant video for so many things even
| tangentially related to motorcycling.
| paulcole wrote:
| ShakeDry is much better than eVent in my experience
| running in very wet weather. eVent is fine for shoes (I'm
| pretty sure it's what Altra uses in the weatherproof Lone
| Peaks) but for both weight and performance, ShakeDry is
| the better jacket material. I've spent way too much money
| on running gear over the years and ShakeDry laps the
| field in waterproof + breathable.
|
| To be honest, I don't particularly care what performs
| best according to research. I'm the one wearing it while
| running and ShakeDry is best for me.
| flybrand wrote:
| Did you work with POLARTEC Neoshell or the North Face
| Futurelight? There were some bike garments made of
| similar materials.
| paulcole wrote:
| I've had Neoshell shoes and they were fine as well. But
| never worn anything w/ that fabric or Futurelight. But
| from the branding that is very alpine/mountaineering
| focused, I'd guess that Futurelight is going to be too
| warm/heavy to be practical for running.
| wyre wrote:
| Neoshell and Futurelight are 3L fabrics so are going to
| be more similar to eVent than shakedry.
| jk7tarYZAQNpTQa wrote:
| > The only downside for me is that it does wear "warm"
|
| Besides, you know, killing yourself and the planet.
| paulcole wrote:
| I don't eat meat, I've never driven a car, I don't fly in
| airplanes, I don't have kids, and I live in a tiny
| apartment. How many of those are true for you?
|
| I'll allow myself the planet-killing indulgence of the
| jacket -- which pales in comparison to those other steps
| I've taken.
|
| Plus, I have a chronic illness that will already likely
| significantly shorten my life anyway. I'm not too worried
| about the health effects of a jacket that I wear 75 days
| a year.
| stygiansonic wrote:
| So your sweat is able to evaporate through the membrane
| leaving you dry? This is the biggest issue I've had with so
| called "breathable" membranes. (I assume you still sweat in
| < 45F weather because I still sweat even in freezing
| temperatures when running, depending on other conditions,
| etc)
| paulcole wrote:
| I wear a Patagonia capilene baselayer and am often
| surprised by how dry everything (both myself and the
| baselayer) are beneath the ShakeDry jacket. There's
| exceptions for sure: harder efforts, slightly warmer
| temperatures, times when the wrists off of my shirt
| "wick" water up into the body of the shirt/jacket, etc.
|
| Overall though for cold (32-45F) and rainy weather like
| we get a lot in the PNW, it's an amazing fabric.
| Raidion wrote:
| As a runner myself, does being waterproof make that much of
| a difference? I've done pretty cold runs with various
| layers of under armour (or related) and while you don't
| stay dry, you do stay warm, and you will dry out pretty
| quickly if the rain stops.
|
| Only thing I can think of would be very rainy and very
| windy weather but those are pretty rare in my area.
| paulcole wrote:
| When it's very wet, being truly waterproof and breathable
| makes a huge difference. It's both much more comfortable
| and keeps me much warmer over the course of a 4-8 hour
| long run.
| loeg wrote:
| > The only downside for me is that it does wear "warm" so I
| mostly wear it in under 45F degree weather
|
| Yeah. For cycling, I wear short-sleeved summer jerseys
| under the Shakedry down into the 30s Fahrenheit. It gets
| pretty warm and sweaty in the high 40s but beats
| alternatives. (I'm up in Seattle.)
| siftrics wrote:
| >The only downside for me
|
| Not to mention the main downside of getting cancer
| Etheryte wrote:
| A small downside of a few fun options [0]:
|
| > As a result of a class-action lawsuit and community
| settlement with DuPont, three epidemiologists conducted
| studies on the population surrounding a chemical plant
| that was exposed to PFOA at levels greater than in the
| general population. Studies have found correlation
| between high PFOA exposure and six health outcomes:
| kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis,
| thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol),
| and pregnancy-induced hypertension.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid
| wernercd wrote:
| [citation needed]
| takeda wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Heal
| th_...
|
| Why do you think they are discontinuing it if it is so
| amazing in what it does?
| wgjordan wrote:
| The CDC's ToxFAQs page on Perfluoroalkyls [1] is one
| starting point, refer to the full 993-page report [2] for
| all the gritty details. Here's a high-level summary of
| the evidence on cancer risks:
|
| > The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC
| 2017) concluded that PFOA is possibly carcinogenic to
| humans (Group 2B), and EPA (2016e, 2016f) concluded that
| there was suggestive evidence of the carcinogenic
| potential of PFOA and PFOS in humans. Increases in
| testicular and kidney cancer have been observed in highly
| exposed humans.
|
| Less research on PFOS that aren't PFOA though, so there's
| room for dismissing the available evidence if you're so
| inclined.
|
| [1] https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?
| faqid=1... [2]
| https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf
| ch4s3 wrote:
| My question for things like this is how do you get
| exposed? Does it absorb through the skin from a garment
| under normal conditions?
| frereubu wrote:
| Are you saying that's the case for exposure to it when
| wearing clothing with it on?
|
| To be clear I'm not diminishing the experience of the
| people who live around the plant where it was produced if
| that's what you're referring to, where clearly it had a
| terrible effect, but my understanding of that was DuPont
| dumped thousands of tonnes of toxic waste in the ground
| near the plant that went into the groundwater, which is
| very different from wearing the product.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| It's night and day different with other waterproof tech.
| Goretex publishes all the specs you want like hydrostatic
| head rating (how many mm of water pressure it can withstand),
| breathability, etc. Shakedry was better and lighter than
| anything else we've ever seen. The only con against it is
| that in high abrasion situations (like shoulder areas of
| jackets when wearing a heavy backpack) it can wear out.
| People in the outdoor and especially ultralight world loved
| shakedry.
| acdha wrote:
| Interesting. I have a fair amount of older ultralight stuff
| and while it definitely did the job I certainly felt that
| there was a sharp knuckle in the price curve where the
| extra cost wasn't worth it.
|
| Durability is a big factor now though since I'm primarily
| bike commuting where it's about daily use & weight is less
| important.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| ePTFE and it's story is amazing.
|
| https://www.wired.com/story/how-gore-tex-was-invented/
| cobalt wrote:
| it's a little more complicated actually:
| http://www.no8rewired.kiwi/nz-inventions/eptfe-aka-goretex/
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Interesting story! Thanks.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| You stay dry, and increase risk of a host of nasty cancers and
| environmental devastation.
| [deleted]
| stevage wrote:
| Weird, I'm a keen cyclist and very into outdoor gear, and I've
| never heard of it. There are now many waterproof fabrics
| though, it's very hard to tell one strong claim from another.
| MezzoDelCammin wrote:
| Depends what distances are You up to and in what weather. If
| You bike in warm weather and can simply dry off at home / in
| a hotel after a race, than no big deal. The cycling jersey
| might do just fine with some basic windbreaker against the
| chill.
|
| Shakedy is however a gamechanger for anyone doing ultra
| distance and self supported racing. The ability to bike
| through a rainy night without worrying about Your upper body
| being wet is nothing short of amazing. And I say that as a
| proud owner of a not-too-old Goretex Pro mountain jacket and
| some older membrane jackets before that.
| sirsinsalot wrote:
| I've always used Nikwax waterproofing products. PFC free and
| amazing for tents and shells.
| justinator wrote:
| Nikwax doesn't waterprood anything. It makes water on the
| surface of materials bead and not wet out so fast. The fabric
| needs still to be, "waterproof".
| secondcoming wrote:
| Unless your tent/garment also has taped/sealed seams then it'll
| never be waterproof; this is why some garments are marketed as
| being only 'water repellant'.
| loeg wrote:
| I use Nikwax too, but it's not even remotely as effective as
| shakedry.
| SkyPuncher wrote:
| I love Nikwax. Use it on my ski stuff.
|
| People are ripping on your for the technical difference between
| 99% waterproof and 100% waterproof. It really doesn't matter in
| practice since your body is going to sweat _and_ some of that
| will never, possibly leave the garment you're wearing.
|
| Nikwax is amazing for crossing the threshold of "I'm freezing
| cold because I keep getting new water on my skin" and "I'm
| slightly damp, but warm".
| hammock wrote:
| You are getting dinged on semantics but I'm here to +1 you for
| Nikwax. Its major competitors, like Gear-X and whatever else
| all use PFCs, and do not indicate this on the label. While the
| entire Nikwax portfolio is PFC-free
|
| And yea, when people put sno-seal or whatever else on their
| winter boots they typically call it "waterproofing" even if
| it's not technically the same meaning of that word as what you
| would say about a rain jacket
| adultSwim wrote:
| I swear by Snoseal. Beewax + cloth or leather has worked well
| for a very long time.
| senderista wrote:
| Not sure if use of recycled materials is responsible, but I
| bought a new Patagonia R1 fleece pullover a few years ago and it
| was utter garbage compared to its 20-year old predecessor
| (technically, same model). Probably the worst-fitting item of
| clothing I own, and the fabric is incredibly uncomfortable.
| Meanwhile, chest zipper on the original has gone out, but it fits
| as well and is just as comfy as the day I bought it.
| postmeta wrote:
| doesnt patagonia have some repair/lifetime warranty? might be
| possible to save the old one
| YLE118 wrote:
| It might be better to find a tailor/repair shop. I lost a
| favorite pair of ski pants when I sent them in for azipper
| replacement. Not sure if something got mixed up in the
| paperwork but I requested they be returned, not replaced if
| the repair was too expensive/difficult. The pants I got
| lasted many more years but the others would have too.
| Unfortunately zippers are just hard to replace if the teeth
| get damaged. They tend to be sewn in early in the assembly
| process.
| bamboozled wrote:
| I have one and I can't compare it to your 20 year old model,
| but I wear it skiing everday in winter, maybe 140 days of the
| year, I have fo 3 years and so far it's fine.
| syncsynchalt wrote:
| A tailor will replace the zipper for you at a reasonable cost.
| I do this on my motorcycling gear as the zipper is the first to
| go on leather armor.
| bsimpson wrote:
| I recently learned that the thing that makes saranwrap cling to
| things is a derivative of PVC that might not be foodsafe. There's
| a newer formulation that uses a different chemical, but
| apparently doesn't work as well.
| stevespang wrote:
| hashtag-til wrote:
| Since I watched the movie "Dark Waters", I'm trying to avoid
| those PFO(A|E) as much as I can.
|
| Threw all non-stick pans away and learnt how to cook with just
| cast iron or inox pans.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film)
| aerojoe23 wrote:
| Sadly it seems to be everywhere. It even lines the inside of
| microwave popcorn bags. It also lines the inside of disposable
| fast food containers very often. I haven't watched the movie
| you mentioned so I don't know if you know this stuff already.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| PFOA hasn't been used in the processing of Teflon for pans in
| nearly a decade.
| blindriver wrote:
| I ditched them a while ago as well. I only use cast iron or
| stainless steel and it makes me wonder why I ever bothered with
| non-stick before.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| Scotch pancakes.
|
| Scotch pancakes is still the one thing I can't cook without
| non-stick.
|
| If anybody has any tips that doesn't include half a kilo of
| lard, then I am very interested.
| klyrs wrote:
| I'd never heard of scotch pancakes, but they look like what
| we make in north america. I use a cast iron griddle and the
| swipe of a lightly oiled rag. The trick is to get the
| griddle to _exactly_ the right temperature before making
| your pancakes, using drops of batter to make "test
| pancakes." The drop should be big enough to get a few
| bubbles; when the bubbles stop closing in on themselves,
| the bottom should be a perfect golden brown. It can take
| several minutes of fidgeting before you dial it in, but if
| you're cooking with cast iron, that's the whole lesson:
| over-temperature burns and sticks, under-temperature sticks
| and burns.
| gregwebs wrote:
| I use a lot of ghee for pancakes. And then you don't need
| to put butter on them before eating.
| plasticeagle wrote:
| Cast iron, stainless steel AND carbon steel.
|
| A carbon steel wok is my favourite cooking implement of all.
|
| Non-stick is not for people who know how to cook.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Do you know the chemical composition of your pan's seasoning?
| There are a decent number of carcinogenic compounds (for
| example acrylamide) produced just by heating natural foods.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > I only use cast iron or stainless steel and it makes me
| wonder why I ever bothered with non-stick before.
|
| Because they are incredibly useful when it comes to certain
| kinds of food, especially eggs and fish.
|
| I find all the "self-congratulatory" posts on the topic of
| non-stick pans, and demonization of people that use them, of
| the "thou doth protest too much" quality. Tons of renowned
| chefs, like Jacques Pepin, have spoken of the benefits of
| non-stick. There are ways to get closer to the quality of
| non-stick with other techniques (e.g. a meticulously cared
| for and seasoned cast iron pan), but it takes a lot more work
| and is still finicky.
|
| I totally get it if you don't want to use a non-stick pan
| because of health or environmental concerns (I find there
| isn't much to be concerned about if you're not using too high
| heat on the pan), but this pretending that non-stick pans
| aren't super useful is silly. I'd challenge anyone to make a
| perfectly light and golden French omelette with, say, just
| butter on a non-nonstick pan (it can obviously be done, it's
| just way harder).
| harimau777 wrote:
| What is the difficulty with fish and eggs? I ask because I
| used to use eggs to deglaze my cast iron skillet. Cook
| something and then when I'm done cook scrambled eggs in it
| to soak up all the debris. As a plus side the eggs have the
| flavor of whatever you're cooking.
|
| (To be clear, I'm really interested in what the issue is.
| This isn't meant to be asking a question as a form of
| sarcasm.)
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| There are many egg preparation methods, e.g. a French
| omelette or over-easy or sunny-side up, where a non-stick
| surface (and here I mean either a non-stick pan like
| Teflon or a well-seasoned traditional pan) is essential.
| Using scrambled eggs to deglaze an iron skillet
| definitely isn't one of these methods.
| [deleted]
| akira2501 wrote:
| > especially eggs
|
| Cooking eggs on a stainless pain isn't particularly
| difficult, you just need to change your technique and use
| quite a bit more preheating along with more oil or butter
| than you traditionally would for a non-stick pan. So, it's
| useful in that sense, but it's not as if we wanted for pan
| fried eggs before non-stick existed.
| bradlys wrote:
| > along with more oil or butter than you traditionally
| would for a non-stick pan
|
| Which means you're trading one health benefit for
| another.
| version_five wrote:
| I posted upstream in favor of nonstick pans, but I will
| say that oil and butter can be part of a perfectly
| healthy diet. I'm less sure about fluorocarbons
| reissbaker wrote:
| Making eggs on stainless steel is definitely more
| difficult... I'd say it's pretty easy with cast iron or
| carbon steel though, which were the traditional ways to
| make eggs pre-nonstick pans.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Here is the quote from Jacques Pepin about the utility of
| non-stick, starts at 1:35, https://www.nytimes.com/video/
| dining/100000001116746/jacques...
|
| Basically, yes, it's certainly possible to get non-stick
| properties with a well-seasoned, very well-maintained
| pan. But even someone like Pepin, who has more than
| enough knowledge and experience to keep a pan in good
| working order, went the route of "that's too finicky,
| nonstick is just easier."
| reissbaker wrote:
| I'm a fairly poor cook and I have to say, the "make a
| French omelette on a cast iron" challenge is just about the
| easiest challenge I've ever done. Cast iron + butter is
| incredibly non-sticky (ditto for carbon steel, which has
| the same seasoning properties but is thinner). I've read
| online so many times that French omelettes are The Reason
| to use nonstick pans; I was shocked when I first tried
| making one on seasoned carbon steel. It just didn't stick
| at all. I suppose it makes sense, though: how else were
| French omelettes made prior to the invention of Teflon?
|
| And my first attempt was just on a cheap pre-seasoned Lodge
| pan and it worked like a dream. It's not particularly
| finicky and didn't require meticulous labor -- the
| seasoning is way less physically delicate than nonstick
| coatings.
| christophilus wrote:
| What brand of pans do you recommend?
| reissbaker wrote:
| Lodge is reasonably good and cheap for both cast iron and
| carbon steel -- they're a bit less pretty than the
| higher-end stuff because they have the pebbly look of
| unsanded steel, but in practice it doesn't make a huge
| difference for cooking. Solidteknics pre-seasoned pans
| are amazing, but pricier, and are a nice hybrid between
| cast iron and carbon steel (and they're smooth, like
| vintage cast iron / carbon steel).
|
| In general I would recommend buying pre-seasoned pans --
| the initial seasoning is the laborious part, but with
| pre-seasoned pans you just skip all of that. Maintaining
| seasoning is pretty easy, it's basically just "use the
| pan" and "don't put the pan in the dishwasher." If it
| looks like it's getting old or messed up, just wipe a
| tiny bit of oil on it and cook at high heat.
|
| Personally I also think carbon steel (or Solidteknics
| "wrought iron") are better than cast iron -- they're
| lighter, heat up faster and more evenly, and they're
| still pretty durable. But they're a bit more expensive,
| and they all are similarly not-sticky.
| hedora wrote:
| We do crepes and eggs on some old lodge ware cast iron
| skillet.
|
| Behold my l33t level 10 cookware maintenance skillz:
|
| We got it on sale for like $20, new, but then I
| accidentally left outside for a few years, which created
| some rust spots.
|
| I fixed it by hitting it with a stainless steel pot
| scrubber and dawn for about 120 seconds, then put it in the
| oven at 350F with some canola oil on it for about an hour.
|
| These days, I scrub it with a nylon brush (no soap) or wipe
| it out with a paper towel.
|
| I've never been able to do a decent crepe or egg in non
| stick, due to uneven heating.
|
| _shrug_
| topaz0 wrote:
| I have a fantastic antique dutch enameled cast iron
| omelette pan. It is amazing.
| version_five wrote:
| I threw out all our nonstick stuff after I observed the
| coating routinely coming off into food.
|
| The exception is for eggs, we have a dedicated pan we only
| use for them, and although I've just read the other
| comments here about how easy it is to fry an egg in other
| pans, I find it goes much better in nonstick. And only
| frying eggs + using a plastic spatula seems to pretty much
| eliminate any wear on the coating.
| switchbak wrote:
| I polished up a lodge cast iron pan to get a smooth
| finish, seasoned it properly with grape seed oil, and
| cook with butter. It works so well, it feels like I'm
| using a non-stick pan.
|
| Not sure why, but using a little butter instead of oil
| seemed to be the key.
| kaybe wrote:
| I wouldn't trust plastic in a pan.
| bushbaba wrote:
| Because in the early 2000s there was a war on natural fats.
| Nutritionists declared all fat bad. We now know that to not
| be the case.
|
| Your stainless steel, high carbon steel, and cast iron pans
| require using a small amount of oil/butter to have nonstick
| cooking properties.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > in the early 2000s there was a war on natural fats.
| Nutritionists declared all fat bad. We now know that to not
| be the case.
|
| Saturated fats were and remain to be generally thought
| unhealthy (if we say things like 'all' or 'always', we're
| almost certainly spreading misinformation; the world
| doesn't work that way). Other fats (polyunsaturates and
| monounsaturates) are believed to be healthy or neutral.
| There is ongoing uncertainty and debate; the degrees and
| nuances change; we don't get sure, hyperbolic answers.
|
| https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-
| eating/eat-s...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/well/fda-healthy-
| food.htm...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/well/good-fats-bad-
| fats.h...
|
| I'm not a grammar and spelling critic, but I'm going to be
| a style critic here (sorry to the parent; lots of people
| write this way): Hyperbole commonly leads to
| misinformation. 'War', 'all fat', 'nutritionists declared',
| 'bad' etc. divert us to an emotional, adversarial contest
| with a strawperson enemy, rather than into the pursuit of
| truth, whose object is always nuanced and whose pursuit is
| difficult enough as it is.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| They weren't completely wrong about fats, we just know
| there's a difference between saturated fats and unsaturated
| fats now. Don't throw the baby out.
|
| Canola oil looks like a superfood when you swap butter for
| it in the literature.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > They weren't completely wrong about fats, we just know
| there's a difference between saturated fats and
| unsaturated fats now.
|
| We knew that in the early 2000s, too. And in the early
| 1990s, which is more when when the war on fats was
| actually happening; by the early '00s, the diet trend had
| focused on low-carb diets, reversing the war on fats.
| [deleted]
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Good point. You can find research that links saturated
| fat to increased blood cholesterol back in the 1950s.
|
| Perhaps it's only a reminder how much the zeitgeist may
| be divorced from science, or how little impact the latter
| actually has on the former unless it's convenient. Though
| that's for another discussion.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Because in the early 2000s there was a war on natural
| fats.
|
| Non-stick was popular well before the early 2000s, its
| popularity is not due to any "war on natural fats" that
| occurred at that time. (And the early '00s is late for
| that, anyway.)
|
| Non-stick is (and has been for a long time) most popular
| for particular forms of cooking that _use_ natural fats,
| whereas particular steel designs (sometimes referred to as
| "waterless" because of their properties in other
| applications) were specifically promoted (including in the
| early 2000s, though they were around before and remain on
| the market now) as eliminating the need to use fats as one
| would with conventional and non-stick cookware.
| alostpuppy wrote:
| I have trouble with stainless. What's the trick? Do you use
| cast iron for skillets and stainless for slice pans?
| Our_Benefactors wrote:
| The trick is get the pan hot (not smoking hot, you've
| preheated too much), then put 1-2tbsp butter or cooking
| oil in the pan and spread it around. It should sizzle a
| bit and then mostly disappear, leaving behind a nonstick
| coating.
| devadvance wrote:
| For stainless, I've found it to be a combination of
| making sure there's enough heat before adding food, being
| OK with using a bit more fat (e.g., oil, butter) than I
| initially expect, using the right utensil while cooking,
| and deglazing as necessary.
| bushbaba wrote:
| I use stainless for acidic foods (e.g. tomato sauces) and
| frying eggs. I use cast iron for pancakes, meats, and
| other items that benefit from the pan not being a
| perfectly flat texture or heat retention.
|
| If I had to have a single pan, I'd probably go high
| carbon steel.
| kragen wrote:
| that movie is fiction
|
| probably neither any kind of fiction, nor any kind of movies,
| but least of all fictional movies, are a good source for
| information about scientific facts, toxicology, or risk
| assessment
| monetus wrote:
| It is a dramatization of a real story, one that happened to
| be testified to in congress not long before the movie came
| out. Please take people in good faith.
| kragen wrote:
| i don't think the grandparent poster is posting in bad
| faith, i just think they're getting their information about
| that real story from an intentionally unreliable source
|
| movies lie to you on purpose to manipulate your emotions
|
| there are lots of reliable information sources about
| pollution risks, like mmwr, the cochrane collaboration,
| msds, toxicology textbooks, wikipedia, epa assessments, and
| so on
|
| there is no need to make yourself dumber by believing
| movies
| NaturalPhallacy wrote:
| There's also a documentary on netflix about it:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_We_Know
|
| I grew up in the area during the worst of the dumping. It
| destroyed basically all of my baby teeth and created cavities
| in a couple of adult teeth that no dentist has ever seen
| before. None of us at the time understood why it was happening.
| I had so many teeth basically just crumble that I had steel
| caps on one with a spacer where another was missing. Both my
| parents assumed it was something I was doing/poor care when I
| was at the other one's house. Turns out it was the goddamn
| water supply.
|
| My stepdad actually worked at the plant long enough to retire
| from there too. I think he had mesothelioma from asbestos, or
| god knows what from the plant.
|
| A lot of people in the area were heavily contaminated:
| https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/legacy/healthnews/2017/05/h...
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| Thanks.
|
| Side note: I wish HN would change Wikipedia links to desktop by
| default. It seems most people post the mobile version. It is a
| bit annoying, because when you are on mobile, a desktop version
| gets switched to mobile by wikipedia; but if you are on
| desktop, you end up with a mobile version which is not
| optimized for desktop reading.
| orhmeh09 wrote:
| You can accomplish this with user scripts on mobile and on
| any desktop browser.
| suprjami wrote:
| I've seen browser extensions which intentionally change to
| the mobile URL on desktop. Some people consider it the
| superior interface.
|
| Ironically the whole thing should be done with CSS, not with
| different URLs. That's such an old concept. Shows how
| outdated Mediawiki is. But make sure you donate to Wikipedia
| today! lol
| bawolff wrote:
| Hey now, you can do that with mediawiki if you want (e.g.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/?useskin=timeless ), for some
| reasons wikipedia/WMF decided they did not want to. Not
| mediawiki's fault.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| I filed a ticket with Wikipedia about this exact issue years
| ago. I get pinged every other year when a new ticket is
| merged with it. Apparently, some journalist wrote an article
| years ago about mobile Wikipedia being a better experience on
| desktop, and now they refuse to do anything about it.
|
| All you can do now is get an extension that redirects you.
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/redirect-
| mobi...
| bawolff wrote:
| Bug tickets are generally not the place where political
| decisions get overturned, so you will probably be waiting a
| long time.
| skybrian wrote:
| I'm comparing the desktop and mobile links in Chrome on
| desktop. The mobile link is missing sidebars, some menu items
| are hidden behind a hamburger icon, and the margins are
| wider. Perhaps navigation to some other pages would be
| harder.
|
| But so what? For the purposes of reading an encyclopedia
| article, it's perfectly readable. The mobile page is better
| than most desktop web pages out there.
| clolege wrote:
| I was gifted a nice Our Place pan set for Christmas which uses
| Ceramic nonstick [0]. Ceramic nonstick doesn't use PFOAs or
| PTFEs so some people think it's safe.
|
| From Our Place's FAQ [1]:
|
| > our Always Pan uses a sol-gel non-stick coating that is made
| primarily from silicon dioxide which is known in the cookware
| industry as "ceramic non-stick." It's tested not only to the
| standards of a ceramic coating (meaning no heavy metals are
| able to pass through the coating) but also tested to the
| standards of a polymeric coating (which means that absolutely
| nothing can pass through the coating).
|
| They seem to be refuting that things can pass through the
| coating, but isn't the concern more around the coating itself
| leaching into the food? And the claims around impermeability of
| the coating go out the window once it wears down too, right?
|
| I'd love to believe that these pans are safe. But is it just
| wishful thinking until more extensive testing has been done?
|
| [0] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stick_surface#Ceramic
|
| [1] https://fromourplace.com/pages/faqs
| hedora wrote:
| I'm reasonably sure non-stick ceramic pans are unsafe. They
| are certainly disposable, and misleadingly marketed. Also,
| the stuff under the coating should be cookware grade iron. It
| is fine if that leaches through. Why are they concerned about
| heavy metals leaching through? Is manufacturing leading to
| lead contamination or something?!?
|
| There is an older technology that involves coating cast iron
| with actual ceramic. It is non-stick "enough", lasts
| generations and is safe. Example (high end) manufacturer:
|
| https://www.lecreuset.com/
| jkqwzsoo wrote:
| Thinking about it for a minute, I'm not sure why we need
| fluoropolymers for waterproof technical fabrics. Unless I'm very
| much mistaken, PDMS rubber, polypropylene, polyethylene, and
| other materials provide similar levels of water resistance,
| without requiring the use of fluorine-containing compounds. Most
| explanations I read for Gor-Tex-type materials using PTFE (e.g.,
| [0]) reference the hydrophobicity of the material, which is (IMO)
| similar to explaining why cars are powered by rockets because
| rockets are very fast. Cars are, of course, not typically powered
| by rockets because it is not necessary.
|
| PDMS rubber, polypropylene, polyethylene, and PTFE all have very
| high water contact angles (a measure of the strength of
| interaction of water and the surface) and low water uptake [1]. I
| work with a stretched polypropylene film (Celgard -- a material
| that is often used as a support/spacer material in Li-ion
| batteries) and it's extremely hydrophobic. I used a piece of this
| film to build a bubble trap ([2]), for example (bubble traps
| typically use PTFE membranes...). It is not optimized for water
| resistance, so it does wet eventually, but it's pretty good for
| "not trying". Surfaces coated with PDMS (or glass coated with
| short PDMS chains -- i.e., silanized glass [3]) are extremely
| hydrophobic.
|
| The only time I personally use PTFE (or PFA, MFA, FEP, or ETFE)
| is when I need materials to be resistant (including both
| resistance to chemical degradation as well as swelling) to strong
| organic solvents (like NMP, THF, etc.) or strong acids and bases
| (like piranha, aqua regia, or a nitrating solution). These
| conditions are unlikely to be encountered while cycling.
|
| This all said, I'm not an expert on the design of Gor-Tex type
| materials. However, I assume it is highly related to the pore
| structure of the materials to prevent liquid water intrusion (the
| same as for membranes designed for membrane distillation). Given
| the similar hydrophobicity of these materials, it seems like it
| should be possible to produce similar results with PP, PE, etc.
| And this is all before introducing the ability of nanomaterials
| and nanopatterning (perhaps transferred with imprint lithography
| [4]) to produce metastable ultrahydrophobicity [5] on the surface
| of materials.
|
| [0] https://www.sungodtech.com/how-much-do-you-know-about-
| ptfe-w..., https://outdoorguru.com/how-to-en/how-does-waterproof-
| and-br... [1] https://www.accudynetest.com/polytable_03.html,
| https://omnexus.specialchem.com/polymer-properties/propertie...
| [2]
| https://static.wixstatic.com/media/ec0ae9_aacc723ea77d46619d...
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silanization [4]
| https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.8b03138 [5]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetting#Cassie-Baxter_model
| exmadscientist wrote:
| As the article says (see also this comment
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33856967 ), that's exactly
| the direction they're planning to head. Given that their PE
| membrane isn't on the market yet, there must be some R&D issue
| or other, but that's life in R&D.
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| There are polypropylene waterproof fabrics, particularly Frogg
| Toggs brand gear is popular in the ultralight world:
| https://www.froggtoggsraingear.com/technology.shtm
|
| They're good jackets in my experience--truly waterproof and
| breathable like goretex, and very inexpensive. They are very
| very fragile though and easily rip or tear open from any sharp
| objects, like getting poked with a branch. As I understand it's
| basically like tyvek house wrap material but made into a more
| flexible material for clothes. Goretex stuff is more durable in
| my experience.
| twic wrote:
| PTFE also repels oil. That means that the holes in the face
| fabric and the pores in the membrane don't get clogged up with
| oil from the wearer's body. Do those other polymers have that
| property? I honestly have no idea how significant this is
| compared to the hydrophobicity though.
| TrispusAttucks wrote:
| I am not optimistic about the future of sustainable specialized
| materials.
|
| It seems very likely that the same structures that give modern
| high tech materials their unique abilities are the same ones that
| make them so environmentally unfriendly.
| nwah1 wrote:
| We are in the middle of a biotech revolution. Figuring out how
| to scale up bioengineered materials is a likely source of
| impressive materials.
|
| Nature is full of stuff like spider silk, chitin, bone,
| phosphorescent materials, sponges,etc.
| bowsamic wrote:
| Natural things usually decay quickly though. Often they
| involve some kind of biological factory that continuously
| grows new biomaterial
| mnky9800n wrote:
| Scaling things always seems to be the thing that takes from
| the environment.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| "Natural" materials can be just as toxic as manufactures
| ones.
| acdha wrote:
| Yes, but it's less common to have completely unknown
| effects and from the perspective of pollution they have the
| desirable property of being broken down quickly when
| discarded or if bits flake off during normal use. That
| still doesn't mean you can't overload the ecosystem but it
| does mean that problems can self-correct more.
| nwah1 wrote:
| The natural/synthetic distinction is arbitrary, but you
| are both right.
|
| The correct approach would be to get more granular and
| specify that we only want to elininate chemicals, whether
| natural or synthetic, that do not break down or are
| toxic.
|
| If you find a natural source of PFAS ("forever
| chemicals") then it isn't any better.
| elric wrote:
| I remember reading something about the trillions of chiken
| bones we discard annually are something of a problem. "The
| dose makes the poison" seems to apply to the environment as
| much as it does to the individual.
| akiselev wrote:
| That doesn't make much sense. Every atom of calcium in a
| chicken bone came from a field somewhere that now has to be
| augmented with more calcium. The easiest way to supply that
| calcium is to grind up the chicken bones and sprinkle them
| on the fields - if you go to a garden center you'll find
| tons of products that list "bonemeal" as an ingredient.
| Since chickens require 3-5x their biomass in food and
| calcium in their meat is digested, there will never be
| enough bones to replenish the calcium used to feed them.
|
| I find it hard to believe that the meat industry throws
| their bones away instead of selling them back to the
| fertilizer manufacturers that supply their feed vendors.
| Only chicken bones thrown in the landfill by consumers are
| lost and these are hardly a problem compared to the volume
| of other crap we discard.
| nwah1 wrote:
| Matter is neither created nor destroyed. The atomes in
| the landfill are also still available to be reclaimed.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| What does 'discarded' mean here? The end user discards them
| but that does not require that they are dumped. They can be
| crushed, composted, used as feedstock for some other
| process, etc.
| TrispusAttucks wrote:
| So much waste goes to landfill when they could be inputs
| to other bio processes. The scale of waste is insane.
|
| "This equates to each household in NYC wasting an average
| of 8.4 pounds of food per week." [1]
|
| Each household could feed a flock of 7 chickens with that
| household waste.
|
| [0] https://www.rts.com/blog/nyc-waste-statistics-what-
| you-need-...
| vanniv wrote:
| trillions of kg/yr of _anything_ will effect the
| environment in _some way_ , since "the environment" is just
| the emergent properties of all of the things in the earth
| system and trillions of kg/yr of stuff is a lot of stuff.
| If you added (or removed) 10^12 kg of water (or literally
| anything else) to the planet, it would change the
| environment in detectable ways.
| meindnoch wrote:
| >10^12 kg of water
|
| That's exactly 1 km^3 of water. The Earth has
| 1,386,000,000 km^3 of surface water.
|
| I don't think increasing the amount of water by
| ~0.00000007% would be noticeable.
| burnished wrote:
| It would probably mess up any km^2 of inhabited landmass.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Curious what the problem is? Animals with bones have
| existed for hundreds of millions of years. The environment
| knows what to do with them. PFCs by contrast do not exist
| naturally in the world and they act as a toxin in the
| environment.
| fpoling wrote:
| The problem is the concentration that nature has never
| experienced before. Alcohol is natural but in
| concentrations that required distilling is a poison.
|
| Or in Norway it turned out throwing into fjords pieces of
| stones that are a by-product of quarry is very
| problematic. It releases into water copper and other
| metals within years poisoning plants and fish. Through
| natural weathering it takes thousands of years to release
| the same amount.
| vlabakje90 wrote:
| Never before has there been a time where billions of
| chickens were killed each year. The dose make the poison.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Around 200 billions chickens are slaughtered each year,
| not sure how that compare with their population during
| previous hundreds millions of years.
| karlkeefer wrote:
| I can't speak to the actual problems from chicken bones,
| but scale may be part of the explanation.
|
| We are producing something like 50 billion chickens for
| slaughter every year. I don't think that estimate
| includes laying hens or culled males, either. The scale
| of chicken production is bonkers relative to natural bird
| populations.
|
| The most abundant wild bird species is on the order of
| 1.5 billion. They are sparrow-sized and that's not their
| annual number.
|
| Framed animals dwarf wild mammals and wild birds by mass:
|
| https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/08/total-biomass-
| weight-...
| giantg2 wrote:
| In theory, scale shouldn't be an issue. After all, you
| need enough farms to produce feed for those animals. It's
| just a matter of processing those by products into
| fertilizer and distributing it over the massive area that
| is used for crop production.
|
| Although industrial farming could be considered an
| environmental problem, regardless of the chickens.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Replacing those 50 billion chickens with "lab grown"
| meat, will bring huge changes the next few decades.
| JadeNB wrote:
| > It seems very likely that the same structures that give
| modern high tech materials their unique abilities are the same
| ones that make them so environmentally unfriendly.
|
| This certainly seems _plausible_ , but on what basis do you
| find it _likely_?
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| People want to own a dream. Buy it for life, effective,
| durable, but also easily compostable! Very cheap, but hand made
| by workers paid a living wage with fair trade materials
| imported from pro-LQBTQIA green democracies.
| stainforth wrote:
| Everything is permitted if its commerce. The right for a
| business to exist supersedes the right for a human to exist.
| There is no cause and effect, only commerce. The market is
| the only thing that exists. Markets will still exist after
| the end of men.
| vanniv wrote:
| Given our ever-expanding definition of "environmentally
| unfriendly" and our ever-contracting definition of
| "sustainable", I'm actually not sure that _anything_ actually
| makes the cut in the long run.
|
| Everything "effects the environment" in some way, after all.
| myself248 wrote:
| This is more or less the argument of various population-
| reduction advocates. There's simply no way, with current or
| foreseeable technology, to sustain 8 billion humans AND still
| have a planet left a few centuries later.
|
| If we want there to be humans in the far, far future, more of
| us need to start going childfree NOW, and encouraging others
| to do so, AND working on sustainable ways to have a decent
| standard of living without eviscerating the Earth.
| vanniv wrote:
| The problem being that everybody always wants to force
| _someone else_ to be the one to have no children and a
| crappy standard of living, while _they_ get to be one of
| the people selected to remain.
| DoneWithAllThat wrote:
| Welcome to the degrowth mindset, where anything that
| represents technological innovation by mankind is perforce
| evil and must be stamped out.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Has anyone tried wax cotton? https://www.fjallraven.com/us/en-
| us/about/our-materials/g100...
|
| I have some items from Fjallraven which is made from a
| cotton/pollyester blend and I find it to be amazingly breathable
| and water resistant (when waxed).
|
| The thing is, I own so much waterproof gear but I hardly do a
| great amount of anything in the actual rain, even if hiking or
| camping, I usually avoid wet weather, I suspect a log of people
| do?
|
| I spend a lot of time in the snow but the was cotton works fine
| for snow.
| fingerlocks wrote:
| Cotton retains water. It's the worst possible fabric for wet
| weather. Many people have died from hypothermia caused by their
| own sweat freezing in cotton garments. It could be argued that
| the entire motivation for creating synthetic fabrics is to
| eliminate the water soaking property of cotton.
| lnauta wrote:
| I have a jacket from that brand and you can put the greenland
| wax on it. This fall, when it got rainy I started applying it
| layer by layer to find how much you need and for vertical parts
| one or two is good enough. For elbows, shoulders and such,
| places that get really wet, at least five layers made it that
| being in the rain for 30 minutes is fine. This is about 1/4 of
| the wax bar. I hope I'm doing it right though!
| jmclnx wrote:
| "All" is a bit over the top. I have Carradice bags and a Poncho
| and they work fine. I have ridden in very heavy rain without
| issues.
| OJFord wrote:
| I have a Carradice poncho too, love it, but I think we're just
| in a different market segment; it's perhaps 'all' to an every-
| last-gram-shaving more 'cycle _sport_ ' audience.
|
| (I also have a couple of pairs of brandless rubber galoshes
| that would be unaffected. They're waterproof but I actually
| wear/wore (when I was cycle-commuting) them year-round - more
| to protect leather soles from the pedals than uppers from the
| rain.)
| peletiah wrote:
| For how long though?
| jmclnx wrote:
| Not sure what you mean for how long, but I have not has
| issues riding all day.
| ck2 wrote:
| Maybe we can mimic some of the effects found in nature without
| chemicals and make hydrophobic surfaces based on their nano-level
| properties?
|
| Or like ducks use preen oil, something closer to that.
| p1mrx wrote:
| Isn't nature made of chemicals?
| epgui wrote:
| It is, and you're totally correct to point that out. Also
| "you know what he meant" is not a good reason to downvote
| you, because no, nobody knows what is meant by "chemical" if
| it isn't literally "chemical".
|
| One could guess that they meant "synthetic chemical", as if
| that was somehow meaningfully different than a "natural
| chemical", but it's not and it's just as wrong.
| profile53 wrote:
| In most casual English conversation, "chemical" is implied
| as "[man made] chemical", though I will admit that may not
| be obvious to people for whom English is not a first
| language. It's obvious to (almost) any native speaker what
| is being said, and to willfully ignore that is to be
| pedantic for the sake of arguing.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Is the fact that something is man made a problem?
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| For many people, yes. It's also a very common belief that
| one and the same state of the environment is bad if
| traceable to human actions, but good otherwise.
|
| The working premise in many environmental discussions is
| that humans carry an inherent moral taint and whatever
| they do creates a problem that needs to be corrected,
| because it came from an evil source, regardless of
| whether the resulting state of the world is good or bad.
| burnished wrote:
| I don't think this is a good explanation. Look for a
| sibling comment from acdha for a better explanation.
| buzzerbetrayed wrote:
| I don't think that is what people are suggesting. Rather,
| man made is unknown. At least the long term affects are.
| We can confidently say that natural chemicals, even if
| they're bad for you, likely won't have a giant,
| unexpected impact on the world. Whereas there are a lot
| of man-made chemicals that are likely harmless. But less
| is know about the long term affects of injecting it in to
| all of earth's various natural systems.
| acdha wrote:
| Often, yes: novel compounds can have side effects which
| take years to understand (e.g. DDT'a impact on bird
| populations lasted past the point where its effectiveness
| was rapidly tapering) and depending on what
| characteristics something was picked for you can end up
| with something which doesn't biodegrade and is thus a
| long-term problem if it doesn't turn out to be harmless.
| epgui wrote:
| The fact that these are man-made is irrelevant to their
| harmful effects and framing it as if it was contributes
| to the persistence of the natural fallacy.
| acdha wrote:
| The natural fallacy application doesn't seem appropriate:
| the problem isn't where they were produced but rather
| that they've never before been part of the ecosystem.
| We'd have the same concerns if these novel chemicals were
| introduced by meteors or something but that's extremely
| rare whereas chemists produce a wide range of compounds
| every year.
| epgui wrote:
| That's exactly what I'm saying. But the context is that
| most people operate with heuristics of the natural
| fallacy type. Hence this is not mere pedantry for
| pedantry's sake, the intention is to provide an actually-
| helpful clarification/correction.
| profile53 wrote:
| It's a good question and in my opinion, it depends
| entirely on the compound.
|
| But that wasn't the point of my comment. I am calling out
| people being pedantic and nitpicky just to argue, instead
| of recognizing the very obvious intent of the great-grand
| parent's comment and debating something with merits, like
| whether man made chemicals are inherently bad.
| c1ccccc1 wrote:
| So which of the following count as "man made" chemicals?
|
| Alcohol or vinegar from humans intentionally fermenting
| things?
|
| A metallic aluminum alloy?
|
| Sulfuric acid (which sometimes occurs naturally)?
|
| Turpentine?
|
| Soda-lime glass?
|
| I get that it generally refers to substances that are
| more on the very artificial side, requiring advanced
| knowledge of chemistry to produce, and to have a
| connotation of harmfulness / toxicity. But it's not at
| all obvious what the speaker would consider to be a
| "chemical" because that varies from speaker to speaker.
| epgui wrote:
| The fact that it's man-made is irrelevant. It's not so
| much about the English language as it is about basic
| science literacy.
| persedes wrote:
| Mushrooms have a protein that can do so on their outer layers
| (hydrophobin). Worked in a biotech company that was researching
| it, not sure what came out of it.
| justin66 wrote:
| They... kept their employees in the dark?
|
| It certainly seems likely we'll find some good alternatives
| with biology.
| elric wrote:
| For most regular activities, old fashioned things like wool
| coats, oiled leather, or waxed cotton work remarkably well.
| Waterproofing imo is only a major issue if you're having to
| save on weight/space (and cost, I guess). It's hard to run 10k
| in a wool greatcoat in the rain.
| hinkley wrote:
| Wicking base layers work pretty damned well. Cyclists did
| that for ages. When we could finally afford polypropylene is
| was a godsend. Way cheaper than goretex.
| robocat wrote:
| > regular activities
|
| The last time I wore a heavy wool greatcoat in solid rain
| while walking, it stayed dry for a while, but got much
| heavier as it took up water, then started soaking through on
| the shoulders after about an hour. Admittedly it is antique
| and I'm guessing it has lost its original waterproofing
| (lanolin?).
|
| Oiled fabrics like a traditional stockman's jacket can last a
| working day, but they weight a lot relatively, they need
| occasional re-waterproofing if used, and are not particularly
| cheap: https://drizabone.com.au/search?q=Oilskin
| throwaway892238 wrote:
| Yep - the original waterproof fabrics were oilskin, waxed
| cotton, and leather. They've mostly been replaced by PU
| coatings, though you might still go for the old school
| stuff for abrasion-resistance.
| mc32 wrote:
| There is already an XVIII century technology and WWII
| popularized option called millerain. But it requires some
| maintenance and isn't "light" as preferred by cyclists and
| runners.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Odd choice. Writing "18th" is faster for the writer and the
| reader.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| Perhaps it's my age but I don't find Roman numerals
| noticeably slower to read than Arabic for the usual use
| case of recent centuries.
| pstuart wrote:
| I'm guessing it played well with the WWII lettering.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| > is faster for the writer
|
| For the whole letter?
|
| > reader
|
| Only if the reader completely unfamiliar with Roman
| numbering system. I didn't even thought about it until I
| saw your comment. _Get off my lawn, son?_
| burnished wrote:
| Yeah, but XVIII has a certain appeal to it that your way
| just can't match.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Yeah wax was used to make tents waterproof as well. But it's
| quite a bit heavier than plastic thread
| mc32 wrote:
| Yep. People will have to put more work into things. But
| it's that or these toxic options as of now.
| noja wrote:
| Will the replacement for PFC be something very similar that is
| equally dangerous?
| meindnoch wrote:
| It will be something that turns out to be a
| carcinogen/endocrine disruptor 20 years from now.
| noasaservice wrote:
| I know you're being sardonic... but it will likely be another
| fluorine based chemistry that is hopefully more biocompatible
| (flush out of body easily), and not cause undue harm.
|
| The perfluro- line of chemicals are quite amazing.. if it
| werent for them being completely obnoxious and stay in the
| body like lead.
| contravariant wrote:
| What is it that makes fluorine added to carbon chains so
| much more versatile? I kind of get why carbon is so
| versatile, but what is that makes fluorine so special and
| why can't some other potentially less harmful halogen do
| the job?
|
| Edit: Ah adding chlorine destroys the ozon layer, what's
| why.
| comicjk wrote:
| Fluorine forms the strongest bonds to carbon that are
| available (much stronger than a carbon-carbon or carbon-
| hydrogen bond, also stronger than carbon-chlorine). It
| acts like an immovable stub preventing further reactions,
| which is great for materials like nonstick coatings, but
| also prevents natural breakdown in the environment.
| hammock wrote:
| What some of the industry has been doing is switching to
| shorter chain PFCs... eg C6 instead of C8 which have a shorter
| half-life in the environment (and presumably the body). They
| are toxic but less so.
|
| As for the PFC-free DWR membranes that apparel makers have been
| using, I don't know enough about them but I don't believe them
| to be toxic per se.
| hedora wrote:
| From the article (so, the replacement is not just another
| equally bad chemical with an acronym that starts with "PF"):
|
| _When it comes to Gore Fabrics, it has actually telegraphed
| its next move, at least to an extent. Back in September, a
| press release went out but never got much traction. I
| remember it coming through my inbox at the time and the title
| "Introducing New Gore-Tex Products with Innovative Expanded
| Polyethylene (ePE) Membrane for AW22" didn't exactly catch my
| eye. I sent an email out to Gorewear and asked about it, but
| there was nothing to test and it fell off my radar._
|
| _As it turns out, that press release was a big deal.
| Expanded polyethylene is the future of the Gore product line.
| Like existing products, it 's available as a three-layer
| fabric with a membrane-embedded between an inner and outer
| face fabric. It still carries the "Guaranteed To Keep You
| Dry" promise and it's still a microporous breathable design.
| What's different is that it is free of PFC [ed. Per-
| fluorinated compounds] and half the weight for footwear and
| clothing. It's currently unavailable in any cycling product,
| so for now, it's a waiting game to see how it performs._
| hammock wrote:
| I wasn't too clear but I kind of switched topic from the
| membrane to the DWR coating to give an adjacent example of
| how the industry has approached reducing PFCs.
|
| ePE refers to a replacement of the ePTFE membrane (which,
| in a 3 layer piece, is sandwiched between the liner and
| outer shell). That's not what I'm referring to.
|
| What I'm referring to is the DWR coating on the outer shell
| (that keeps the membrane from "wetting out"). Traditionally
| it was PFCs but there are non-PFC options now
|
| The ePE membrane sounds cool though, if it works
| kragen wrote:
| no, there just isn't a replacement for perfluorocarbons, that's
| all
|
| perfluorocarbons themselves are among the least dangerous
| materials in the world, but the materials used to make them are
| very nasty indeed
| CameronNemo wrote:
| TFA mentions Gore is putting a lot of money into R&D for PFA
| alternatives. They may fail, not sure if that is what you
| meant. But they will certainly try.
| kragen wrote:
| no other class of materials is anywhere close to
| perfluorocarbons in many properties, such as low affinity
| for both hydrocarbons and water, and ultraviolet resistance
| coupled with softness
|
| additionally such levels of resistance to biodegradation
| are rarely found in combination with either of the previous
| two qualities
|
| no other known organic compounds, out of the currently 182
| million assigned cas numbers, are as thermally stable
|
| we are not talking about the kind of research and
| development that a company can carry out over a
| commercially viable timescale; we're talking about
| fundamental breakthroughs in material engineering
|
| perfluorocarbons were discovered almost a century ago, and
| nothing equaling or exceeding their properties in these
| ways has been discovered since
|
| moreover, there are fundamental reasons to suspect that
| nothing ever will be; fluorine is the most electronegative
| element that exists or ever will exist, if we restrict
| ourselves to ordinary atomic matter, and there aren't any
| plausible room-temperature substitutes for carbon chains in
| this role either
|
| so it wouldn't be surprising if the company tries to palm
| off inferior polyethylene substitutes as 'gore-tex' in
| preference to just declaring defeat, but it's not plausible
| that they're going to discover an equivalent or better non-
| perfluorocarbon alternative within the next decade or two
|
| this is science, not magic
|
| some things are just impossible
| fncivivue7 wrote:
| And thank fuck for that. DWR is disgusting, horrible stuff.
|
| Stop using DWR. Buy frogtoggs or Columbia outdry and leave this
| stuff behind.
|
| Outdry is lighter stronger, doesn't wear off after three outings,
| and the material breathes better than a wetted out goretex jacket
| ever will.
|
| Unless you're in snow, goretex is next to useless.
| loeg wrote:
| Shakedrys don't use DWRs, and not all DWRs use PFCs. "Wetted
| out jacket" also isn't a thing that happens to shakedry
| apparel. By all means, criticize use of PFCs for environmental
| reasons, but there's no need to fabricate criticisms.
| zymhan wrote:
| This is a surprisingly in-depth article, I found it very
| informative.
| downvotetruth wrote:
| > Gore is committing to a "goal for being free of PFCs of
| Environmental Concern." That doesn't affect the ePTFE membrane
| though because, according to the brand, ePTFE "is inert,
| insoluble in water, extremely stable and not biodegradable.
| Therefore, it does not degrade to become a source of PFCs of
| Environmental Concern."
|
| Gore continuation: biodegradable:degradeable ::(->)
| unbiodegradable:undegradeable
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| It's more of a case that they as a business have no way of
| making money without this pollutant not that the pollutant
| itself is not an issue.
|
| I have worn plenty of boots with Gore-Tex reinforced regions
| and they most definitely break down and become frail and
| brittle given enough kilometers of trekking.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm honestly not convinced how much good Gore-Tex does in a
| boot. I've bought boots with Gore-Tex because I liked them
| for other reasons but I'm not sure they were appreciably more
| water resistant than those that were "waterproof." Certainly
| my heavy leather boots (or my winter books that have rubber
| or whatever on the lower part of the boot) are more
| resistant.
| wyre wrote:
| Gore Tex is going to be much lighter and more pliable than
| leather or rubber.
| ghaff wrote:
| It's also a great deal less effective for footwear in my
| experience. However, it can be a reasonable tradeoff if
| you don't want to wear a heavy boot for 3-season hiking.
| rc_mob wrote:
| Well ... good
| jakecopp wrote:
| > Depending on who you ask, it may also be a product that marks
| the end of an era and a standard we never reach again in the
| outdoor industry.
|
| Sounds reminiscent of asbestos.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-04 23:00 UTC)