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

221–230 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#221

Post by kaybe »

version_five wrote: post #181
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 threw out all our nonstick stuff after I observed the coating routinely coming off into food. The exception is for eggs, we have a dedicated pan we only use for them, and although I've just read the other comments here about how easy it is to fry an egg in other pans, I find it goes much better in nonstick. And only frying eggs + using a plastic spatula seems to pretty much eliminate any wear on the coating.

I wouldn't trust plastic in a pan.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#222

Post by throwaway5959 »

s0rce wrote: post #204
kccqzy wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this demonization of Teflon aka PTFE? I mean yes PFOA and PFOS are pretty bad, but PTFE should be pretty safe if you don't overheat it. I mean I just purchased a non-stick cooking pan and it contained PTFE coating; should I be worried now?

I think the issue is more in manufacturing and disposal not use. Don't overheat your pan and you are fine. The garments also used PFAS based coatings for water repellent coatings which are also bad.

Don’t overheat the pan you use to cook food with heat?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#224

Post by halpmeh »

kccqzy wrote: post #187
numpad0 wrote: post #140

> "Introducing New Gore-Tex Products with Innovative Expanded Polyethylene (ePE) Membrane for AW22" didn't exactly catch my eye. I sent an email out to Gorewear and asked about it, but there was nothing to test and it fell off my radar. > 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…

Why is this demonization of Teflon aka PTFE? I mean yes PFOA and PFOS are pretty bad, but PTFE should be pretty safe if you don't overheat it. I mean I just purchased a non-stick cooking pan and it contained PTFE coating; should I be worried now?

Cooking in Teflon cookware been associated with liver cancer.

More generally, ingesting anything your body can’t break down doesn’t end well. It typically builds up and causes cancer. E.g. asbestos, silica lung, stomach cancer from chewing tobacco, etc.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#225

Post by wolverine876 »

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…

My guess is that it's a suburban thing. People are almost always 'indoors', home or car. The standard for what's acceptable outdoor weather is high.

Visit a northern urban downtown. You will see plenty of people who pay little attention to the rain - not even rain jackets or umbrellas. They just go about their day.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#226

Post by TrispusAttucks »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #75
elric wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does 'discarded' mean here? The end user discards them but that does not require that they are dumped. They can be crushed, composted, used as feedstock for some other process, etc.

So much waste goes to landfill when they could be inputs to other bio processes. The scale of waste is insane.

"This equates to each household in NYC wasting an average of 8.4 pounds of food per week." [1]

Each household could feed a flock of 7 chickens with that household waste.

[0] https://www.rts.com/blog/nyc-waste-statistics-what-you-need-...

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#227

Post by SkyPuncher »

jmull wrote: post #219
throwaway892238 wrote: post #195

I must be a weirdo.... I just wear lots of wool, and a thin windproof/rainproof jacket with armpit zips. I get sweaty but I stay warm (as long as I'm moving)

Wool + wind shield is actually pretty hard to beat. The modern materials can be effective while being very light weight and take up little space. But I think these are much more niche concerns than most people like to acknowledge. I think the real reason the modern materials are more popular than wool+ is that they are more profitable when marketed, and hence are heavily marketed.

The problem is most wind shields are equivalent to wearing a plastic bag. The moment you start sweating, it creates a terrible, sticky, humid environment.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#228

Post by bawolff »

suprjami wrote: post #105
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hey now, you can do that with mediawiki if you want (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/?useskin=timeless ), for some reasons wikipedia/WMF decided they did not want to. Not mediawiki's fault.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#229

Post by SkyPuncher »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #16

I've always used Nikwax waterproofing products. PFC free and amazing for tents and shells.

I love Nikwax. Use it on my ski stuff.

People are ripping on your for the technical difference between 99% waterproof and 100% waterproof. It really doesn't matter in practice since your body is going to sweat _and_ some of that will never, possibly leave the garment you're wearing.

Nikwax is amazing for crossing the threshold of "I'm freezing cold because I keep getting new water on my skin" and "I'm slightly damp, but warm".

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#230

Post by senderista »

Not sure if use of recycled materials is responsible, but I bought a new Patagonia R1 fleece pullover a few years ago and it was utter garbage compared to its 20-year old predecessor (technically, same model). Probably the worst-fitting item of clothing I own, and the fabric is incredibly uncomfortable. Meanwhile, chest zipper on the original has gone out, but it fits as well and is just as comfy as the day I bought it.
Post reply on HN