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

301–310 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#301

Post by scythe »

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.

Fluorocarbons have a low London dispersion (induced dipole) force due to the high polarization of the C-F bond. This is responsible for many of the unusual properties of fluorocarbon solvents, particularly high gas solubility and extreme hydrophobicity. It's also just inert, much moreso than chlorocarbons (which tend to be quite toxic).

My undergraduate research project at involved identifying poly-tert-butyl-methacrylate as a polymer with similar hydrophobicity (as measured by the wetting angle) to the fluorocarbons, but I don't think anything ever really came of it. It may be unfavorable for other reasons; I don't remember.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#302

Post by TaylorAlexander »

acdha wrote: post #294
analog31 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> 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 g…

Yeap – and the price differential usually means you can buy like 5 pairs of Costco/L.L. Bean-grade stuff which takes the sting out of losing or damaging something, or simply leaving spares at work in case you forget to check the weather. Also, honesty compels me to note that if I wanted to shave weight off of my riding load out it’s a lot cheaper to start at the waistline.

> Also, honesty compels me to note that if I wanted to shave weight off of my riding load out it’s a lot cheaper to start at the waistline.

This is a total tangent but I recently added an electric mid-drive motor to my mountain bike and with the motor and the battery I was already adding a lot of weight, and now I have a rear rack and panniers and I use it to toot around the city and get groceries and stuff. Its just funny I am going the opposite direction, making my bike heavier while also making it less likely I will lose weight. Sure is fun though with 1500 watts at my disposal!

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#303

Post by giraffe_lady »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #296
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’m not telling you to cook differently or but a specific pan, but I don’t get it. I’ve had the same metal pans for about 15 years and they work as well as ever. Just about nothing sticks to them. I don’t need to worry about what might seep out of them into my air or dinner, they were extremely economical, I think they look nice, etc. Why is there even a market for potentially harmful cookware? Was it driven by marke…

If you're talking about carbon steel it takes a little more technique and especially more oil to use for things where you want a non-stick situation. It's not a ton of oil but there's definitely been a shift in the last couple decades and it just doesn't work with the infinitesimal amounts of fat a lot of people try to cook with now.

Where teflon nonstick is as foolproof as you can get, as long as the coating hasn't worn out things basically won't stick. It also makes cleanup very easy even for things where you don't specifically need nonstick, which is very practical for how a lot of people cook, especially people who don't particularly enjoy cooking. Can't really put carbon steel in the dishwasher either, which again people who enjoy cooking and maintain nice gear look down on, but is just a practical consideration that a lot of people weigh heavily so you can't ignore.

If you're talking about cast iron that's a different thing. A lot of overlap with teflon nonstick but some things aren't comfortable or practical in it so it's not a complete replacement.

I'm not specifically an expert on cookware or anything but I have like 20 years of professional cooking experience so not totally ignorant either.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#304

Post by giraffe_lady »

adultSwim wrote: post #238
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)

I would love to see a return of waxed canvas as an outer shell material.

This is what I use because I've had it forever and it's cheap. It's heavy and high maintenance though. And if you're in wet conditions for hours it'll soak up a ton of water and just get even heavier, and take forever to dry.

There's probably no perfect solution here but this definitely isn't a direct replacement, though sure it's practical for a lot of applications.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#305

Post by tartoran »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #296
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’m not telling you to cook differently or but a specific pan, but I don’t get it. I’ve had the same metal pans for about 15 years and they work as well as ever. Just about nothing sticks to them. I don’t need to worry about what might seep out of them into my air or dinner, they were extremely economical, I think they look nice, etc. Why is there even a market for potentially harmful cookware? Was it driven by marke…

Your pans are good, they’re actually bad for the industry because they have no death and the industry wants to sell you something “better and improved” every year.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#306

Post by icelancer »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #296
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’m not telling you to cook differently or but a specific pan, but I don’t get it. I’ve had the same metal pans for about 15 years and they work as well as ever. Just about nothing sticks to them. I don’t need to worry about what might seep out of them into my air or dinner, they were extremely economical, I think they look nice, etc. Why is there even a market for potentially harmful cookware? Was it driven by marke…

> Why is there even a market for potentially harmful cookware? Was it driven by marketing or am I mistaken, and my pans aren’t any good?

Eggs. There's a reason almost all professional chefs, despite knowing more than anyone about how to season metal-based pans, use nonstick pans for eggs. (And sometimes fish.)

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#307

Post by idontwantthis »

senderista wrote: post #232
SkyPuncher wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For active use, you’ll often stay drier under a water-repellent treated breathable fabric that doesn’t pretend to be waterproof. With most “waterproof/breathable” fabrics, you’ll get soaked from the inside long before you get soaked from the outside.

What exactly is the treatment? I was spraying some boots last week and I wondered if I'm directly applying PFAS to my clothes and breathing it in.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#309

Post by acdha »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #302
acdha wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeap – and the price differential usually means you can buy like 5 pairs of Costco/L.L. Bean-grade stuff which takes the sting out of losing or damaging something, or simply leaving spares at work in case you forget to check the weather. Also, honesty compels me to note that if I wanted to shave weight off of my riding load out it’s a lot cheaper to start at the waistline.

> Also, honesty compels me to note that if I wanted to shave weight off of my riding load out it’s a lot cheaper to start at the waistline. This is a total tangent but I recently added an electric mid-drive motor to my mountain bike and with the motor and the battery I was already adding a lot of weight, and now I have a rear rack and panniers and I use it to toot around the city and get groceries and stuff. Its just…

Oh, can I ever relate. I bought a cargo bike back in 2018 when construction on our subway line meant I was looking at a much longer commute to daycare with my son. I opted for an e-bike since it was going to be ~15 miles carrying all of the gear a kid needs.

It's been transformative since it basically removes most excuses for shopping, recreation, etc. — we put more miles on the e-bikes now than our car — and we often laugh at the way your mindset changes. I currently have a heavy duty chain lock which weighs more than my lightest road-bike weighed unloaded, have been known to dig into the panniers and find multiple changes of clothes and toys for the boy, etc. What's really nice is durability: they make incredibly tough tires these days as long as you don't mind them weighing twice as much.

I must say that the times I've been on a real road bike have definitely left me missing that feeling — it's basically the bike version of the jokes about someone selling their convertible and buying a minivan when they have kids — but what I really want is to rent a nice road bike on vacation since the safe & fun routes where I live really don't need any extra performance (I don't want to be the spandex bro slaloming around kids at 30+ MPH on the shared trails).

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#310

Post by paulcole »

jeromegv wrote: post #280
paulcole wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We can’t unfortunately have a supply chain where we sell some products to people that don’t drive a car.

You’re dangerously close to getting it here.

Why don’t we work towards developing societies where driving a car for any truly non-essential reason is seen as one of the most selfish and anti-social things you can do? Yes, this would be a massive amount of work. Yes, it would cost a ton. Yes, people wouldn’t like it.

But then we could sell all products to people who drive cars as little as humanly possible. A huge improvement!

Post reply on HN