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

121–130 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#121

Post by flybrand »

loeg wrote: post #85
qbasic_forever wrote: post #66

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.

I suspect you'll see knockoffs without the Gore brand. It was too effective and the original goretex patents have expired.

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.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#122

Post by gregwebs »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #98
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.

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.

I use a lot of ghee for pancakes. And then you don't need to put butter on them before eating.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#123

Post by siftrics »

paulcole wrote: post #43
acdha wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.?

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…

>The only downside for me

Not to mention the main downside of getting cancer

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#124

Post by Jolter »

loeg wrote: post #74
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 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.

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.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#125

Post by qbasic_forever »

jkqwzsoo wrote: post #86

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 materi…

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.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#126

Post by burnished »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #45
lotsofpulp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the fact that something is man made a problem?

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 g…

I don’t think this is a good explanation. Look for a sibling comment from acdha for a better explanation.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#127

Post by clolege »

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 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

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#128

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> 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.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#129

Post by bushbaba »

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?

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.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#130

Post by monetus »

kragen wrote: post #78
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)

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

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.
Post reply on HN