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

271–280 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#271

Post by topaz0 »

clolege wrote: post #127
hashtag-til wrote: post #54

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)

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 haven't tried them. I read this profile and decided I never will: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/always-pan-our-pl...

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#272

Post by meristem »

bamboozled wrote: post #236
senderista wrote: post #230

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…

I have one and I can't compare it to your 20 year old model, but I wear it skiing everday in winter, maybe 140 days of the year, I have fo 3 years and so far it's fine.

Ski-related followup: What do you wear over it?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#274

Post by JamisonM »

takeda wrote: post #178
wernercd wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Health_... Why do you think they are discontinuing it if it is so amazing in what it does?

I am a disinterested observer in all this but the issues seem to be in the concentrations involved in the production of the materials, not in the wearing of them.

The grandparent comment seems to imply that wearing these materials is a cancer risk but it really doesn't seem like that is the case. Am I wrong? I can't find anything that indicates it is an issue.

(I live in an old house with some asbestos-wrapped ducts, I think asbestos is bad and should not be produced anymore but I also think that the duct wrap in my house is not endangering my family.. this seems like that sort of a situation to me.)

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#275

Post by analog31 »

acdha wrote: post #170
qbasic_forever wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's night and day different with other waterproof tech. Goretex publishes all the specs you want like hydrostatic head rating (how many mm of water pressure it can withstand), breathability, etc. Shakedry was better and lighter than anything else we've ever seen. The only con against it is that in high abrasion situations (like shoulder areas of jackets when wearing a heavy backpack) it can wear out. People in the o…

Interesting. I have a fair amount of older ultralight stuff and while it definitely did the job I certainly felt that there was a sharp knuckle in the price curve where the extra cost wasn’t worth it. Durability is a big factor now though since I’m primarily bike commuting where it’s about daily use & weight is less important.

>>> Durability is a big factor now though since I’m primarily bike commuting where it’s about daily use & weight is less important.

Nothing's more annoying than an expensive rain jacket or pants soaking through after a couple years of sporadic use. The crotch and knees of rain pants always wear out from the inside. Sunlight probably damages materials from the outside.

More and more I've learned to live without that gear, or to use it sparingly, by timing my trips and wearing fast-drying clothing. But sometimes it's just necessary.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#276

Post by stcroixx »

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…

If I tried to work in my yard while it’s raining it would cause too much damage that’s too much work to repair . I don’t even do yard work for a couple days after it rains. This is solely for practical reasons for me.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#277

Post by bricemo »

kragen wrote: post #234
monetus wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a dramatization of a real story, one that happened to be testified to in congress not long before the movie came out. Please take people in good faith.

i don't think the grandparent poster is posting in bad faith, i just think they're getting their information about that real story from an intentionally unreliable source movies lie to you on purpose to manipulate your emotions there are lots of reliable information sources about pollution risks, like mmwr, the cochrane collaboration, msds, toxicology textbooks, wikipedia, epa assessments, and so on there is no need…

What in the movie was false?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#278

Post by waste_monk »

paulcole wrote: post #239
jk7tarYZAQNpTQa wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I don’t eat meat, I’ve never driven a car, I don’t fly in airplanes, I don’t have kids, and I live in a tiny apartment. How many of those are true for you? I’ll allow myself the planet-killing indulgence of the jacket — which pales in comparison to those other steps I’ve taken. Plus, I have a chronic illness that will already likely significantly shorten my life anyway. I’m not too worried about the health effects of…

If humanity up and disappeared tomorrow, most of the environmental damage from cars, overpopulation, etc. would sort itself out in a couple of hundred years.

PFAS, however, are extremely chemically stable and some of them will still be around in 1,000+ years time. They also bioaccumulate, and biomagnification occurs in predators (similar to mercury). It is a massive problem and the repercussions will be with us for a very long time.

If you don't care about your own health, fine. But don't try and take a moral stance about caring for the environment and then complain about PFAS products going away. Being slightly uncomfortable while exercising is a very small price to pay for not screwing up the planet.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#279

Post by RandallBrown »

fingerlocks wrote: post #245
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…

Cotton retains water. It’s the worst possible fabric for wet weather. Many people have died from hypothermia caused by their own sweat freezing in cotton garments. It could be argued that the entire motivation for creating synthetic fabrics is to eliminate the water soaking property of cotton.

Waxed cotton doesn't retain water and has been used for waterproof clothing for centuries.

It's heavier than other options, so it's not going to be popular for a lot of people in the outdoors.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#280

Post by jeromegv »

paulcole wrote: post #239
jk7tarYZAQNpTQa wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I don’t eat meat, I’ve never driven a car, I don’t fly in airplanes, I don’t have kids, and I live in a tiny apartment. How many of those are true for you? I’ll allow myself the planet-killing indulgence of the jacket — which pales in comparison to those other steps I’ve taken. Plus, I have a chronic illness that will already likely significantly shorten my life anyway. I’m not too worried about the health effects of…

That’s the problem. The product isn’t made for you. It’s made for society. And society does all the things you listed. From a society perspective, the product is bad, for the environment but also for cancer. We can’t unfortunately have a supply chain where we sell some products to people that don’t drive a car.
Post reply on HN