71–80 of 397 posts
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.
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.
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?
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 overhea…
> 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.?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
I've always used Nikwax waterproofing products. PFC free and amazing for tents and shells.