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

331–340 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#331

Post by serf »

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…

> 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?

as an earth-noid I appreciate the service you're doing for us here, we need more like you; but weaponizing those points makes the endeavor feel like a big exercise in virtue signaling -- I very-much hope you chose to live your life that way for a greater reason than one-upping someone on the internet.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#332

Post by serf »

refurb wrote: post #315
waste_monk wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

counter-question : do you only place value on things that are human-centric?

there is a lot about Earth that makes it unique outside of humanity.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#333

Post by bsimpson »

stephen_g wrote: post #316
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.

The massive Costco brand rolls that everyone I know uses seem to still be PVDC (or at least were when I bought the one in my pantry).

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#334

Post by japanuspus »

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.

Fjällräven is a very well-established Swedish brand that makes exactly this, and even have their own brand of wax. As far as I know, none of their products have any synthetic membranes.

Here in Denmark, "Fjällräven" is a household name to the point that it can be used to refer to their small backpack model.

[0]: https://www.fjallraven.com/

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#335

Post by Y-bar »

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.)

What am I missing out on? Something must make teflon/nonstick better than cast iron here, but I have never had any problems with eggs or fish in my heavy pans.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#336

Post by concordDance »

wgjordan wrote: post #192
wernercd wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed]

The CDC's ToxFAQs page on Perfluoroalkyls [1] is one starting point, refer to the full 993-page report [2] for all the gritty details. Here's a high-level summary of the evidence on cancer risks: > The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 2017) concluded that PFOA is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), and EPA (2016e, 2016f) concluded that there was suggestive evidence of the carcinogenic potenti…

So just some suggestive evidence and confounders could exist.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#337

Post by KSteffensen »

JamisonM wrote: post #274
takeda wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

The people wearing these things are probably not at any risk, but producing these chemicals means that they eventually end up in nature, which means in ground water, farmland, etc.

These flourinated organics don't break down in nature, they are known as 'forever chemicals'. They just stick around and get concentrated as they climb up the food chain. Like dioxins, the best way to get rid of them is burning them at sufficiently high temperatures, which apparently not all industrial incinerators reach.

I guess if enough of this stuff is pumped into the environment eventually some fungus or something will learn how to decompose it, but there will be a lot of cancer case before we get there.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#338

Post by drewm1980 »

Is there any non-petrochemical tech on the horizon for this? There many natural surfaces that seem to magically shed water; it seems a shame to me that gore fabrics is replacing petro-plastic with another petro-plastic instead of going straight to a sustainable option.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#339

Post by Bayart »

drewm1980 wrote: post #338

Is there any non-petrochemical tech on the horizon for this? There many natural surfaces that seem to magically shed water; it seems a shame to me that gore fabrics is replacing petro-plastic with another petro-plastic instead of going straight to a sustainable option.

Beeswax is the traditional way.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#340

Post by [deleted] »

japanuspus wrote: post #334
adultSwim wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Fjällräven is a very well-established Swedish brand that makes exactly this, and even have their own brand of wax. As far as I know, none of their products have any synthetic membranes. Here in Denmark, "Fjällräven" is a household name to the point that it can be used to refer to their small backpack model. [0]: https://www.fjallraven.com/

[deleted]
Post reply on HN