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

191–200 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#191

Post by vanniv »

myself248 wrote: post #89
vanniv wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given our ever-expanding definition of "environmentally unfriendly" and our ever-contracting definition of "sustainable", I'm actually not sure that anything actually makes the cut in the long run. Everything "effects the environment" in some way, after all.

This is more or less the argument of various population-reduction advocates. There's simply no way, with current or foreseeable technology, to sustain 8 billion humans AND still have a planet left a few centuries later. If we want there to be humans in the far, far future, more of us need to start going childfree NOW, and encouraging others to do so, AND working on sustainable ways to have a decent standard of living…

The problem being that everybody always wants to force someone else to be the one to have no children and a crappy standard of living, while they get to be one of the people selected to remain.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#192

Post by wgjordan »

wernercd wrote: post #145
siftrics wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[citation needed]

The CDC's ToxFAQs page on Perfluoroalkyls [1] is one starting point, refer to the full 993-page report [2] for all the gritty details. Here's a high-level summary of the evidence on cancer risks:

> The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 2017) concluded that PFOA is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), and EPA (2016e, 2016f) concluded that there was suggestive evidence of the carcinogenic potential of PFOA and PFOS in humans. Increases in testicular and kidney cancer have been observed in highly exposed humans.

Less research on PFOS that aren't PFOA though, so there's room for dismissing the available evidence if you're so inclined.

[1] https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=1... [2] https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#193

Post by BurningFrog »

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…

Replacing those 50 billion chickens with "lab grown" meat, will bring huge changes the next few decades.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#194

Post by loeg »

oostevo wrote: post #188
loeg wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that the international ski bodies (FIS et al) have fully banned the substances at this point. No phase out.

The ban was postponed, as I understand it, as they work through ways to catch people cheating by still using the substances. https://www.fis-ski.com/en/international-ski-federation/news...

Oh, interesting, I hadn't heard that. Thanks!

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#196

Post by s0rce »

1MachineElf wrote: post #158
keitmo wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Florida, living between the coast and the everglades, rain is a daily occurrence. Having grown up there for 20 years, I feel that rain doesn't phase me at all. I have questioned the averseness northerners have towards getting wet. Living in Maryland now, so many I've interacted with will just not go outside all day if there is rain. They've been raised by parents who've trained them to wait for the rain to stop, t…

Cold vs. warm rain is a huge difference. I lived in coastal California and road my bike to work all year, it could be 40F and raining, if you don't have a waterproof jacket you'll be freezing really fast. You'll be sweaty inside because they don't breathe perfectly but you won't freeze. In warm tropical rainy places you can just get wet from rain and not really worry.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#197

Post by josephcsible »

Jolter wrote: post #72
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.

You realize this stuff is actually /toxic/, right? 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?

Tetraethyl lead was actually toxic too. What incentive led the avgas industry to replace it before it was banned?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#198

Post by throwaway892238 »

robocat wrote: post #139
elric wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> regular activities 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…

Yep - the original waterproof fabrics were oilskin, waxed cotton, and leather. They've mostly been replaced by PU coatings, though you might still go for the old school stuff for abrasion-resistance.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#199

Post by reissbaker »

christophilus wrote: post #167
reissbaker wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What brand of pans do you recommend?

Lodge is reasonably good and cheap for both cast iron and carbon steel — they're a bit less pretty than the higher-end stuff because they have the pebbly look of unsanded steel, but in practice it doesn't make a huge difference for cooking. Solidteknics pre-seasoned pans are amazing, but pricier, and are a nice hybrid between cast iron and carbon steel (and they're smooth, like vintage cast iron / carbon steel).

In general I would recommend buying pre-seasoned pans — the initial seasoning is the laborious part, but with pre-seasoned pans you just skip all of that. Maintaining seasoning is pretty easy, it's basically just "use the pan" and "don't put the pan in the dishwasher." If it looks like it's getting old or messed up, just wipe a tiny bit of oil on it and cook at high heat.

Personally I also think carbon steel (or Solidteknics "wrought iron") are better than cast iron — they're lighter, heat up faster and more evenly, and they're still pretty durable. But they're a bit more expensive, and they all are similarly not-sticky.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#200

Post by cwkoss »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #91
Jolter wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think the material lasts long enough to have multiple users. My experience of ptfe and related chemicals is that they wash out and the material degrades over time worth wear, so they don’t stay water-repellent very long. If they didn’t degrade quickly, they wouldn’t be such a threat to the environment. Edit: Sorry, I didn’t mean PTFE above but PFC.

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.

If the fibers are ptfe, isn't it harming the environment as it is worn and sheds microparticles? And every time it's washed?
Post reply on HN