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

311–320 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#311

Post by telotortium »

nwah1 wrote: post #172
akiselev wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t make much sense. Every atom of calcium in a chicken bone came from a field somewhere that now has to be augmented with more calcium. The easiest way to supply that calcium is to grind up the chicken bones and sprinkle them on the fields - if you go to a garden center you’ll find tons of products that list “bonemeal” as an ingredient. Since chickens require 3-5x their biomass in food and calcium in their…

Matter is neither created nor destroyed. The atomes in the landfill are also still available to be reclaimed.

I think mining landfills is a cool idea in theory, but I've never heard of anyone doing it (the closest is processing old mining slag for more materials).

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#312

Post by TaylorAlexander »

acdha wrote: post #309
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ofte…

That sounds great! Yeah I’m fortunate I have a decent Fuji road bike too, and I’ve not taken it out since my recent move in to the city. But it would be nice to get some exercise and some of that sports car feeling! Absolutely love using the ebike for pleasure riding though and I agree it’s nicer to take the bike for groceries than the car!

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#313

Post by 0_____0 »

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…

Motorcycles are indeed super fun. Interesting to see the uptake in motorcycling from the low end of the power spectrum, vs the bikes that often have similar power outputs to an economy car.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#314

Post by burnished »

meindnoch wrote: post #267
burnished wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would probably mess up any km^2 of inhabited landmass.

Sure. And a glass of water can kill you if it goes in your lungs. But stick to the charitable interpretation, where the water is distributed evenly in the environment, shall we?

If we want to be charitable, then perhaps you’d see that my point was specifically about how the scale was important, and that averaging impact out over the entire globe was perhaps not the correct scale

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#315

Post by refurb »

waste_monk wrote: post #278
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…

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…

If there are no humans around does life on earth have any value? It’s just another planet among billions.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#316

Post by stephen_g »

bsimpson wrote: post #84

I recently learned that the thing that makes saranwrap cling to things is a derivative of PVC that might not be foodsafe. There's a newer formulation that uses a different chemical, but apparently doesn't work as well.

According to Wikipedia, Saran wrap switched from PVDC to polyethylene (which is still considered safe) was in 2004.

PVC and PVDC have lower oxygen permeability so keep food better, but both environmental and food safety concerns in food contact applications.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#317

Post by joe_the_user »

icelancer wrote: post #306
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Professional chefs...

I can believe nonstick is X amount faster for Y different dishes. I am still easily able to cook crepes, omelettes and fried eggs perfectly with my well seasoned cast iron pans.

I'd note that nonstick pans are usually coated aluminum and so a fair amount lighter than cast iron pans. If I needed to produce a certain number of eggs per hour, that would be a big thing for me. But should society decide based on this?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#318

Post by TaylorAlexander »

0_____0 wrote: post #313
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Motorcycles are indeed super fun. Interesting to see the uptake in motorcycling from the low end of the power spectrum, vs the bikes that often have similar power outputs to an economy car.

At two horsepower you can call my mountain bike a motorcycle if you want, but I just consider it a hopped up ebike.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#319

Post by californical »

topaz0 wrote: post #246
throwaway5959 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes. i.e. 400-500F is much more likely to be harmful to health than 300F. This is why teflon pans are not a good choice for things like searing meat, where you really want the surface to be very hot. Of course, you can still do plenty of cooking at 300F.

Or just preheating oil — you can easily get a pan within that range in just a couple of minutes if you put oil on the bottom and turn the stove on high

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#320

Post by topaz0 »

californical wrote: post #319
topaz0 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. i.e. 400-500F is much more likely to be harmful to health than 300F. This is why teflon pans are not a good choice for things like searing meat, where you really want the surface to be very hot. Of course, you can still do plenty of cooking at 300F.

Or just preheating oil — you can easily get a pan within that range in just a couple of minutes if you put oil on the bottom and turn the stove on high

Indeed -- I tend to think of preheating a teflon pan as dangerous by default.
Post reply on HN