131–140 of 397 posts
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)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>10^12 kg of water 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.
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)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that these are man-made is irrelevant to their harmful effects and framing it as if it was contributes to the persistence of the natural fallacy.
The natural fallacy application doesn’t seem appropriate: the problem isn’t where they were produced but rather that they’ve never before been part of the ecosystem. We’d have the same concerns if these novel chemicals were introduced by meteors or something but that’s extremely rare whereas chemists produce a wide range of compounds every year.
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.
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.
We knew that in the early 2000s, too. And in the early 1990s, which is more when when the war on fats was actually happening; by the early ’00s, the diet trend had focused on low-carb diets, reversing the war on fats.
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…
Shakedry is just a bare goretex membrane, as far as I know…aka without the outer shell fabric. Not sure it’s revolutionary. You reduce weight and bulk by eliminating the outer fabric but at the expense of abrasion resistance. Why it works for road cycling but not much else.
My guess is that road cyclists have a tendency to buy new gear on a shockingly frequent basis, so if your jacket only lasts a year it's not really a problem.
Maybe we can mimic some of the effects found in nature without chemicals and make hydrophobic surfaces based on their nano-level properties? Or like ducks use preen oil, something closer to that.
For most regular activities, old fashioned things like wool coats, oiled leather, or waxed cotton work remarkably well. Waterproofing imo is only a major issue if you're having to save on weight/space (and cost, I guess). It's hard to run 10k in a wool greatcoat in the rain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I can’t reconcile that with what the OP states: "While the Shakedry fabric has been great for its characteristics as a cycling jacket (waterproofness, breathability and lightweight), the membrane also contains PFOA [ed. Perfluorooctanoic acid] chemicals, and Gore is dedicated to being PFOA-free by 2025[…]” Certainly seems like shakedry is being phased out because it contains a (banned) toxic chemical. What am I getti…
Maybe we can mimic some of the effects found in nature without chemicals and make hydrophobic surfaces based on their nano-level properties? Or like ducks use preen oil, something closer to that.
For most regular activities, old fashioned things like wool coats, oiled leather, or waxed cotton work remarkably well. Waterproofing imo is only a major issue if you're having to save on weight/space (and cost, I guess). It's hard to run 10k in a wool greatcoat in the rain.
The last time I wore a heavy wool greatcoat in solid rain while walking, it stayed dry for a while, but got much heavier as it took up water, then started soaking through on the shoulders after about an hour. Admittedly it is antique and I'm guessing it has lost its original waterproofing (lanolin?).
Oiled fabrics like a traditional stockman's jacket can last a working day, but they weight a lot relatively, they need occasional re-waterproofing if used, and are not particularly cheap: https://drizabone.com.au/search?q=Oilskin
> As it turns out, that press release was a big deal. Expanded polyethylene is the future of the Gore product line.
That sounds reasonable, and by the way, today I learned we were so casually wearing Teflon clothing all the time just to be comfortable in rainy days. That's atomic.