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

141–150 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#141

Post by [deleted] »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #116
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.

> I only use cast iron or stainless steel and it makes me wonder why I ever bothered with non-stick before. Because they are incredibly useful when it comes to certain kinds of food, especially eggs and fish. I find all the "self-congratulatory" posts on the topic of non-stick pans, and demonization of people that use them, of the "thou doth protest too much" quality. Tons of renowned chefs, like Jacques Pepin, have…

[deleted]

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#142

Post by akiselev »

elric wrote: post #15
nwah1 wrote: post #9

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.

That doesn’t make much sense. Every atom of calcium in a chicken bone came from a field somewhere that now has to be augmented with more calcium. The easiest way to supply that calcium is to grind up the chicken bones and sprinkle them on the fields - if you go to a garden center you’ll find tons of products that list “bonemeal” as an ingredient. Since chickens require 3-5x their biomass in food and calcium in their meat is digested, there will never be enough bones to replenish the calcium used to feed them.

I find it hard to believe that the meat industry throws their bones away instead of selling them back to the fertilizer manufacturers that supply their feed vendors. Only chicken bones thrown in the landfill by consumers are lost and these are hardly a problem compared to the volume of other crap we discard.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#143

Post by akira2501 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #116
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.

> I only use cast iron or stainless steel and it makes me wonder why I ever bothered with non-stick before. Because they are incredibly useful when it comes to certain kinds of food, especially eggs and fish. I find all the "self-congratulatory" posts on the topic of non-stick pans, and demonization of people that use them, of the "thou doth protest too much" quality. Tons of renowned chefs, like Jacques Pepin, have…

> especially eggs

Cooking eggs on a stainless pain isn't particularly difficult, you just need to change your technique and use quite a bit more preheating along with more oil or butter than you traditionally would for a non-stick pan. So, it's useful in that sense, but it's not as if we wanted for pan fried eggs before non-stick existed.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#144

Post by Etheryte »

siftrics wrote: post #123
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…

>The only downside for me Not to mention the main downside of getting cancer

A small downside of a few fun options [0]:

> As a result of a class-action lawsuit and community settlement with DuPont, three epidemiologists conducted studies on the population surrounding a chemical plant that was exposed to PFOA at levels greater than in the general population. Studies have found correlation between high PFOA exposure and six health outcomes: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol), and pregnancy-induced hypertension.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#145

Post by wernercd »

siftrics wrote: post #123
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…

>The only downside for me Not to mention the main downside of getting cancer

[citation needed]

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#146

Post by reissbaker »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #116
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.

> I only use cast iron or stainless steel and it makes me wonder why I ever bothered with non-stick before. Because they are incredibly useful when it comes to certain kinds of food, especially eggs and fish. I find all the "self-congratulatory" posts on the topic of non-stick pans, and demonization of people that use them, of the "thou doth protest too much" quality. Tons of renowned chefs, like Jacques Pepin, have…

I'm a fairly poor cook and I have to say, the "make a French omelette on a cast iron" challenge is just about the easiest challenge I've ever done. Cast iron + butter is incredibly non-sticky (ditto for carbon steel, which has the same seasoning properties but is thinner). I've read online so many times that French omelettes are The Reason to use nonstick pans; I was shocked when I first tried making one on seasoned carbon steel. It just didn't stick at all. I suppose it makes sense, though: how else were French omelettes made prior to the invention of Teflon?

And my first attempt was just on a cheap pre-seasoned Lodge pan and it worked like a dream. It's not particularly finicky and didn't require meticulous labor — the seasoning is way less physically delicate than nonstick coatings.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#148

Post by stygiansonic »

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…

So your sweat is able to evaporate through the membrane leaving you dry? This is the biggest issue I’ve had with so called “breathable” membranes. (I assume you still sweat in < 45F weather because I still sweat even in freezing temperatures when running, depending on other conditions, etc)

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#149

Post by keitmo »

acdha wrote: post #30
wyre wrote: post #13

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.?

For years I've said "any clothing manufacturer that promises something is both 'waterproof' and 'breathable' is lying to you".

Shakedry actually delivers on this promise.

FWIW I do endurance cycling in the Seattle area, a.k.a. "The Pacific NorthWET". We tend to stress the hell out of waterproof clothing.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#150

Post by justin66 »

persedes wrote: post #38
ck2 wrote: post #4

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.

Mushrooms have a protein that can do so on their outer layers (hydrophobin). Worked in a biotech company that was researching it, not sure what came out of it.

They… kept their employees in the dark?

It certainly seems likely we’ll find some good alternatives with biology.

Post reply on HN