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

251–260 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#251

Post by salawat »

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…

It's all fun and games until you're just above freezing and soaking wet. Wet in the south is something completrly different from wet in Florida.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#252

Post by ip26 »

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)

What is the rainproof part made of?

Not everyone has the option of “just don’t stop moving”.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#253

Post by hombre_fatal »

dragonwriter wrote: post #135
hombre_fatal wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They weren’t completely wrong about fats, we just know there’s a difference between saturated fats and unsaturated fats now. 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.

Good point. You can find research that links saturated fat to increased blood cholesterol back in the 1950s.

Perhaps it's only a reminder how much the zeitgeist may be divorced from science, or how little impact the latter actually has on the former unless it's convenient. Though that's for another discussion.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#254

Post by girvo »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #227
jmull wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone who lives in QLD Australia, I’m used to that sticky humidity I guess — the rare times I need to deal with cold and wet, wool and a wind shield jacket is fantastic for me. Very different environment than most others in this thread though I think.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#255

Post by lnauta »

bamboozled wrote: post #233

Has anyone tried wax cotton? https://www.fjallraven.com/us/en-us/about/our-materials/g100... I have some items from Fjallraven which is made from a cotton/pollyester blend and I find it to be amazingly breathable and water resistant (when waxed). The thing is, I own so much waterproof gear but I hardly do a great amount of anything in the actual rain, even if hiking or camping, I usually avoid wet weather, I suspect…

I have a jacket from that brand and you can put the greenland wax on it. This fall, when it got rainy I started applying it layer by layer to find how much you need and for vertical parts one or two is good enough. For elbows, shoulders and such, places that get really wet, at least five layers made it that being in the rain for 30 minutes is fine. This is about 1/4 of the wax bar. I hope I'm doing it right though!

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#256

Post by loeg »

fncivivue7 wrote: post #240

And thank fuck for that. DWR is disgusting, horrible stuff. Stop using DWR. Buy frogtoggs or Columbia outdry and leave this stuff behind. Outdry is lighter stronger, doesn't wear off after three outings, and the material breathes better than a wetted out goretex jacket ever will. Unless you're in snow, goretex is next to useless.

Shakedrys don't use DWRs, and not all DWRs use PFCs. "Wetted out jacket" also isn't a thing that happens to shakedry apparel. By all means, criticize use of PFCs for environmental reasons, but there's no need to fabricate criticisms.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#257

Post by girvo »

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?

Make sure you don’t scratch it, and don’t overheat it. There are studies that appear to show it might not be ideal even following that, but it’s not completely clear I think. It should be fine if you treat it correctly

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#258

Post by topaz0 »

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 have a fantastic antique dutch enameled cast iron omelette pan. It is amazing.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#259

Post by comicjk »

contravariant wrote: post #201
noasaservice wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you're being sardonic... but it will likely be another fluorine based chemistry that is hopefully more biocompatible (flush out of body easily), and not cause undue harm. The perfluro- line of chemicals are quite amazing.. if it werent for them being completely obnoxious and stay in the body like lead.

What is it that makes fluorine added to carbon chains so much more versatile? I kind of get why carbon is so versatile, but what is that makes fluorine so special and why can't some other potentially less harmful halogen do the job? Edit: Ah adding chlorine destroys the ozon layer, what's why.

Fluorine forms the strongest bonds to carbon that are available (much stronger than a carbon-carbon or carbon-hydrogen bond, also stronger than carbon-chlorine). It acts like an immovable stub preventing further reactions, which is great for materials like nonstick coatings, but also prevents natural breakdown in the environment.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#260

Post by musicale »

hedora wrote: post #152
clolege wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 heav…

I'm reasonably sure non-stick ceramic pans are unsafe. They are certainly disposable, and misleadingly marketed. Also, the stuff under the coating should be cookware grade iron. It is fine if that leaches through. Why are they concerned about heavy metals leaching through? Is manufacturing leading to lead contamination or something?!? There is an older technology that involves coating cast iron with actual ceramic. I…

A pure SiO2 (sand or glass?) non-stick coating seems like it would be reasonably safe.

But "made primarily from" gives me pause since they don't say what the other ingredients are.

Post reply on HN