41–50 of 52 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any brand recommendations?
Outlier makes expensive but very nice wool tshirts. I have accumulated a fair number over the years and only see issues with the ones that are over seven years old.
Definitely pricey, but looks promising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> wool, which is also not very sustainable This is a matter do be checked with some detail, since some position against wool have become vocal: wool is, as expected, biodegradable (though it may be subject to chemical treatments that ruin this property); wool is recyclable, both as fabric and as industrial-use material (e.g. as an insulant); as a material for clothing, the excellent properties relative to the other o…
> processes for the production of wool may entail some impact, independent from the material but related to the sheep. I suspect this is the massively buried lead here - one so huge and so buried that I'm having a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt. The lifecycle of wool itself is probably not at all the major concern. It will not take just a few more sheep to replace the entirety of the global use of poly…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ionizing air filter are a health hazard on their own: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c02582# I don’t know input HEPA production, but if you throw them into household trash here in Germany they simply get burned.
Yes, most of the HEPA air purifiers are trash, offered like as a "subscription service" due to the large cost and short lifespan (6 months in average) of the filters. But there are other options like Sharp KCA50EUW [0] with an advertised filter life span of up to 10 years. A more trendy and smart offering is Electrolux PA91-404DG, albeit it has a shorter filter lifespan (could not find the number now but if my memory…
HEPA purifiers aren't trash, they are simply producing trash. For me that is a lesser evil to producing potentially dangerous chemicals in my home. Just like I accept using FFP2-masks that aren't reusable in contrast to cloth masks used at the start of the pandemic. There are other places where saving trash is has less negative impact than health products.
There's a difference between working in the industry and wearing a shirt. Does this article says that people wearing polyester clothing are at serious risk?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> wool, which is also not very sustainable This is a matter do be checked with some detail, since some position against wool have become vocal: wool is, as expected, biodegradable (though it may be subject to chemical treatments that ruin this property); wool is recyclable, both as fabric and as industrial-use material (e.g. as an insulant); as a material for clothing, the excellent properties relative to the other o…
> processes for the production of wool may entail some impact, independent from the material but related to the sheep. I suspect this is the massively buried lead here - one so huge and so buried that I'm having a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt. The lifecycle of wool itself is probably not at all the major concern. It will not take just a few more sheep to replace the entirety of the global use of poly…
You wrote «is»: did you mean «would be»? Who is «trying to pass those concerns off as minor considerations»?
There have been in some areas bureaucratic issues with wool, as if it were "warning-label class material": this has / has had people check a few facts.
Edit: which by the way means, some wool may have been treated in a way that raised concern in public health monitoring entities. Think of the Amazon, but do not forget those thing that are there touching your skin. You could want to look into it.
Anyway: when the issue is with production, maybe there are ways to partially fix it. Were the material toxic, you'd have in a way a bigger problem.
And anyway, surely the vast majority of us HN members reasons through quantities and vets the given puzzle pieces to at least some extent: as ericd noted, Cost/Risks/Benefit analysis are duly as what you have are options, with different tradeoffs and complications, and having further promising ones is certainly beneficial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried five different brands, from $40 to $120; only one was decently comfortable (most were itchy, stretched weirdly and were uncomfortable) and the extra burden of washing and maintenance, not to mention cost, made them a non-starter. For $5 a shirt, Gildan 100% cotton v-neck t-shirts allow you to buy a couple dozen and rotate through them for years. That's where I'm currently at, I wanted to love wool, but I just…
Interesting, I haven’t found any of them to be itchy, but maybe some are more sensitive to it them than others. Do you remember which you tried? I like the linen shirts I’ve tried for hot weather, but haven’t tried many yet. Luca Faloni makes nice linen dress shirts.
Woolly, Icebreaker, Minus33, and I forget the other brand. These were all very bad, I kept the Icebreaker for a couple wears, but everything else I immediately returned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If synthetic fabrics go, hooooo boy... talk about an industrial shakeup. Polyester accounts for ~50% of global fabric production. Non-plastic synthetic fibers made from wood pulp are pretty bad for the environment (you basically use harsh chemicals to liquefy wood and turn that into new fibers). The only thing "performance-wise" that comes close is wool, which is also not very sustainable, and difficult to care for.…
Well we do have a decent source for fibres in the form of Hemp. The Hemp fibre is longer and stronger than a cotton fibre, but the political favours pulled by the US Cotton growers association in the past has indirectly helped to bring man made fibres like these into play as a cheap alternative source for clothing and covers. This issue, isnt restricted to clothing made of man made fibres, it will affect the leisure…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well we do have a decent source for fibres in the form of Hemp. The Hemp fibre is longer and stronger than a cotton fibre, but the political favours pulled by the US Cotton growers association in the past has indirectly helped to bring man made fibres like these into play as a cheap alternative source for clothing and covers. This issue, isnt restricted to clothing made of man made fibres, it will affect the leisure…
If you want asbestos, you should try talc. Lots of nice asbestos there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> wool, which is also not very sustainable This is a matter do be checked with some detail, since some position against wool have become vocal: wool is, as expected, biodegradable (though it may be subject to chemical treatments that ruin this property); wool is recyclable, both as fabric and as industrial-use material (e.g. as an insulant); as a material for clothing, the excellent properties relative to the other o…
> processes for the production of wool may entail some impact, independent from the material but related to the sheep. I suspect this is the massively buried lead here - one so huge and so buried that I'm having a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt. The lifecycle of wool itself is probably not at all the major concern. It will not take just a few more sheep to replace the entirety of the global use of poly…