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

371–380 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#371

Post by hardnose »

drewm1980 wrote: post #341
japanuspus wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Their waterproofing wax is a mix of paraffin and bee wax. So if the whole point is to avoid petrochemicals or avoid animal products, this isn't a solution. Perhaps soy wax could be used for this...

A combination of beeswax and microcrystalline wax (made from petrolatum) works the best, but beeswax alone will provide fine water repellency, just slightly less durability and ease of application.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#372

Post by 0_____0 »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #318
0_____0 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At 1500W the human power component is ornamental really, and the vehicle becomes inappropriate for multiuse paths and bike lanes. Much closer to a moped (e.g. the 49cc Honda Ruckus), and probably faster!

I love any form of transport that isn’t a car! Love that the e-Moto or e-Moped or HighPower_eMTB segment is taking off, I’m just anticipating that we’re going to eventually see them become their own segment with different rules, regs, and facilities from bicycles.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#373

Post by Lio »

refurb wrote: post #360
Lio wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life on Earth is what's special, not us. We're just animals, nothing more. Given that multiple species can evolve to fill the same niche, I would expect that as long as life of some kind survives on the planet another species would evolve to replace us.

Special to who?

Special to the universe. As far as we can tell,so far we are the only planet with life of any kind.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#374

Post by krolden »

fomine3 wrote: post #327
jakecopp wrote: post #223

> Depending on who you ask, it may also be a product that marks the end of an era and a standard we never reach again in the outdoor industry. Sounds reminiscent of asbestos.

Maybe like studded tires, for some region

Where are studded tires banned?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#377

Post by kragen »

bricemo wrote: post #277
kragen wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

this is a ridiculous question

i am not going to subject myself to hours of manipulative propaganda for which truth is not even a consideration in order to write a 'rebuttal' nobody wants to read, thus implicitly affirming all the errors that i missed or that didn't seem important enough to mention

dramatizations are works of fiction

literally everything in them is false with the occasional exception

every word, every facial expression, every event, every chemical reaction, every purchase, every article of clothing, every motivation

the exceptions where they say something objectively true are enumerable; the falsehoods are not

don't base your beliefs or life decisions on fiction

finding out what is true and making good choices are hard enough without deliberately sabotaging the process

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#378

Post by kragen »

_visgean wrote: post #291
kragen wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no other class of materials is anywhere close to perfluorocarbons in many properties, such as low affinity for both water and hydrocarbons (and consequently fats), and ultraviolet resistance coupled with softness additionally such levels of resistance to biodegradation are rarely found in combination with either of the previous two qualities no other known organic compounds, out of the currently 182 million assigned…

ok as a single layer this is the best we can do, but maybe we can combine different materials - different layers of fabris to make it work on a similar level?

or superhydrophobic metamaterials, or utility fog, or something, but it's not going to be plannable or soon

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#379

Post by tremon »

wolverine876 wrote: post #323
topaz0 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A war on all fats" is a pretty good summary of a lot of popular nutritional messaging in the '90s though. Low fat or fat free was a big selling point on lots of food packaging, even when it didn't make sense. Magazine articles about how you could cut just a bit more fat out of this or that recipe. I'm 100% in agreement that the reality is more nuanced, including that dietary fats, some more than others, can be harmf…

> "A war on all fats" is a pretty good summary No, it's pushing hyperbole. It tells the world your emotional position - you think it was a war. Let's try something more factual, that reveals the underlying issues - if we know the facts. Low fat and fat free is still a big selling point. Look at the NYT article on the FDA's plans, for example.

It tells the world your emotional position

It doesn't read as if they're describing their own position, emotional or not. It's a characterization of the public messaging surrounding dietary fat.

Low fat and fat free is still a big selling point

Yes, that's mainly because of aforementioned public messaging.

Post reply on HN