Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 413 posts

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#341

Post by NeedMoreTea »

strainer wrote: post #317
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole breathable/gore-tex thing is overrated as they all rely on liberal use of DWR chemicals that tend to be waterproof only for a while. So regular retreatment, which never seems to be as good, or acceptance of wetness is needed. :) I'm surprised to see Patagonia in the worst of that site's categories, considering their stance on sustainability.

Gore-tex (at least the heavy 'classic' kind) doesn't have any refreshable coating. Its an inner layer of moisture wicking mesh, stuck to a thin rubbery ptfe membrane of some sort and an outer very abrasion resistant layer which is hydrophobic when clean. It can be boil washed and special treatments are advised against. It is very waterproof while surprisingly breathable.

Hmm, as far as I can remember, every gore-tex item I've owned across the decades -- mainly from the better outdoorsy brands -- has needed a refresh, and warned to expect that on the label or leaflet. Some lasted longer than others. One that was left far too long without eventually gave about as much water protection as a cotton jacket. Whether any of them were "classic" gore-tex or not, I don't know. I've always understood it as the middle breathable layer with several bonded layers, and chemically waterproofed outer.

Wikipedia seems to agree about the outer, and only notes a decline in breathability in newer fabric by using a PU layer in place of teflon bonded to fabric found on the earliest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore-Tex

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#343

Post by samatman »

thewebcount wrote: post #280
samatman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Air-quality safety (among other things) is assured by the EPA, and it's done a lot to undermine that trust in the last couple of decades. Electronics safety is assured by UL, a private company. To date, they've maintained the public's trust in their services. If Consumer Reports publishes an exposé of UL taking kickbacks to certify substandard equipment, I'd become very interested in buying gear certified by a compet…

Most people don't know what UL is or that they even exist. Of the few who do, many probably believe it's some government mandated thing. Regardless, just because UL seems to be doing a decent job (I'm not really qualified to comment on that, just going on an assumption here), there have been other industry groups that were supposed to do the same thing and were basically utter failures. For example, the EnergyStar or…

> Energy Star was started in 1992 by the EPA as a voluntary labeling program to encourage the consumption of more energy-efficient appliances.

Huh! TIL.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#344

Post by munk-a »

darawk wrote: post #227
kerkeslager wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no, actually, people aren't voting for this. Many people aren't voting at all, because they're excluded based on felony convictions, inability to meet paperwork requirements for voter IDs, etc. Gerrymandering is extremely effective. The electoral college isn't intentional gerrymandering, but it has the same effect as gerrymandering: two of the last three presidents lost the popular vote. And where it's intentio…

> Many people aren't voting at all Choosing not to vote is a vote. > because they're excluded based on felony convictions, inability to meet paperwork requirements for voter IDs, etc. Felony disenfranchisement hardly contradicts my point. And anyway, voter suppression and felony disenfranchisement are at all time lows historically, so my point stands just fine. > Gerrymandering is extremely effective. The electoral c…

Choosing not to vote is an action - it's not a vote, and, to be honest, it's a rather stupid action if you have the freedom to choose a different action.

Yea America is broken, the two party system is broken - so start voting strategically for third parties that actually represent plans to fix the system - no your candidate won't be elected but you'll both pressure existing candidates and make new candidates eligible that endorse the voting reform you want to see.

I think, in this current age, we've actually got some decent mainstream contenders with solid voting reform plans and maybe, if no one who endorses your other values endorses those plans, then you should vote third party to encourage them to adopt them as well.

Also, bear in mind that voting for a third party is essentially not expressing your opinion when it comes to policy (assuming there is a candidate that aligns with your value) so this advice is pretty much solely aimed at those who would choose not to vote - also don't vote for Mickey Mouse, it's possibly the least effective way to protect the system because nobody cares about those votes.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#345

Post by overkalix »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #310
troyvit wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow I had no idea. Here's a link that talks about makers of outdoor gear and their relationship with DWR. http://www.detox-outdoor.org/ It doesn't look like there is a lot of choice. Maybe I'll just stay wet :)

The whole breathable/gore-tex thing is overrated as they all rely on liberal use of DWR chemicals that tend to be waterproof only for a while. So regular retreatment, which never seems to be as good, or acceptance of wetness is needed. :) I'm surprised to see Patagonia in the worst of that site's categories, considering their stance on sustainability.

On the other hand, I'm completely unsurprised to see archie on the bottom list.

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#346

Post by sizzle »

nate_meurer wrote: post #214

Meanwhile, these same PFAS chemicals are sprayed liberally onto the surface of clothing that we all wear, and increasingly furniture as well, and this may account for far more human PFAS consumption than drinking water. PFAS chemicals are widely used for waterproofing fabrics. The industry term is DWR -- Durable Water Repellent. The chemicals are sprayed onto the surface and simply left there to rub off on your hands…

What do these chemicals do to humans?

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#347

Post by sizzle »

ip26 wrote: post #338
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole breathable/gore-tex thing is overrated as they all rely on liberal use of DWR chemicals that tend to be waterproof only for a while. So regular retreatment, which never seems to be as good, or acceptance of wetness is needed. :) I'm surprised to see Patagonia in the worst of that site's categories, considering their stance on sustainability.

Gore-tex does stay waterproof. It just can't breathe once the outer fabric soaks through, which results in clamminess. DWR delays this & keeps it breathable for longer in wet conditions. Gore is not a great solution if you'll be drowning in rain but for intermittent showers, meltwater and snow it has time to dry out. Especially if you're moving & generating heat.

What is a better engineered membrane than gore-tex?

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#348

Post by tptacek »

dctoedt wrote: post #337
rayiner wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I agree, the US government isn't functioning 1) as originally intended or 2) for the benefit of the majority of the people it 'represents.' I disagree, and I think you need to take a look at three sets of poll results to understand why. (For all the poll results, keep in mind that voters skew more conservative than the overall population.) 1) A recent Gallup poll shows that the vast majority of Americans prefer…

> Aside from a brief dip during 9/11, a majority of the country listed "big government" as the "biggest threat" since the late 1980s. ... In part that's due to the incessant, implacable drumbeat from the you're-not-the-boss-of-me right wing (and their cheering sections in the wealthy and wannabe-wealthy) that government is always the problem and never part of the solution; that if we just leave people alone they'll a…

Isn't this a little like saying "in part that's due to the fact that conservatives are persuasive"?

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#349

Post by kasey_junk »

tptacek wrote: post #348
dctoedt wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aside from a brief dip during 9/11, a majority of the country listed "big government" as the "biggest threat" since the late 1980s. ... In part that's due to the incessant, implacable drumbeat from the you're-not-the-boss-of-me right wing (and their cheering sections in the wealthy and wannabe-wealthy) that government is always the problem and never part of the solution; that if we just leave people alone they'll a…

Isn't this a little like saying "in part that's due to the fact that conservatives are persuasive"?

Yes. But I think you can also attribute some of it to “the rich* have weaponized conservative politics.”

They have the most leverage so a minority opinion can show outsized results.

*apply all appropriate modifiers about not all rich etc

Re: U.S. drinking water widely contaminated with 'forever chemicals': report

#350

Post by sizzle »

Why are these chemicals not being extensively studied and banned if adverse health effects are proven to affect human health? This stuff could be shortening our lifespan and we are just absorbing it all the time in clothing and water etc unbeknownst to us.
Post reply on HN