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

PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

cyclingnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#101

Post by plasticeagle »

blindriver wrote: post #63
hashtag-til wrote: post #54

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)

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.

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.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#102

Post by devadvance »

alostpuppy wrote: post #94
bushbaba wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have trouble with stainless. What’s the trick? Do you use cast iron for skillets and stainless for slice pans?

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.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#103

Post by giantg2 »

karlkeefer wrote: post #33
CydeWeys wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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-siz…

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.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#104

Post by orhmeh09 »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #90
hashtag-til wrote: post #54

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)

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.

You can accomplish this with user scripts on mobile and on any desktop browser.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#105

Post by suprjami »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #90
hashtag-til wrote: post #54

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)

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.

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

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#106

Post by swagmoney1606 »

josephcsible wrote: post #67

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.

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.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#107

Post by hombre_fatal »

bushbaba wrote: post #87
blindriver wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#108

Post by ZoomerCretin »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #90
hashtag-til wrote: post #54

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)

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.

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...

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#109

Post by qbasic_forever »

Jolter wrote: post #96
qbasic_forever wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, I meant PFC. I’ve edited the comment.

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.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#110

Post by paulcole »

_0w8t wrote: post #60
paulcole wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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?

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.

Post reply on HN