Traces? I'm really puzzled by this thread, meaning I don't really understand what do people mean by plastics. I would guess it's all synthetic fabrics, but then the gp proposition is so nuts it's surprising someone even discusses it. Like, all sportswear is synthetic, and you cannot replace it with any old-fashioned fabrics, because synthetics are simply better. It isn't even the right word, it's like saying you must…
"were wearing wool, wood and leather and somehow even managed to do something like mountaineering" Serious mountaineering is still done with merino wool.
Yes, but our outer layers and bags are all synthetic.
Microplastics seem bad. The evidence of adverse effects seems marginal. But in the bigger picture, plastics provide enormous wealth to the world. We should look for ways to mitigate any adverse environmental effects, of course, but it's not at all obvious to me that the ROI of doing so in my personal life is positive.
People, get air filters inside of your house and especially your bedroom. Anything with a HEPA filter. I personally have a Winix and a dyson fan, quite happy with it. You'll be surprised what it picks up over time, and consequently what you end up not inhaling...
Are these filters sufficient to filter out microplastics?
Yes. And particles down to 0.3 microns.
My understanding is that the health benefits are most pronounced from avoiding smoke and fine dust particles which don't necessarily have a lot to do with plastic, but it's a good recommendation regardless.
There is significant evidence linking PM2.5 concentrations and health (which is a common metric about fine particles in the air of a particular size, in this case 2.5 micron range)
Traces? I'm really puzzled by this thread, meaning I don't really understand what do people mean by plastics. I would guess it's all synthetic fabrics, but then the gp proposition is so nuts it's surprising someone even discusses it. Like, all sportswear is synthetic, and you cannot replace it with any old-fashioned fabrics, because synthetics are simply better. It isn't even the right word, it's like saying you must…
"were wearing wool, wood and leather and somehow even managed to do something like mountaineering" Serious mountaineering is still done with merino wool.
You obviously have no clue about "serious mountaineering" and what you are talking about in general. Even though I do have a couple of merino wool items, they can be replaced with synthetics quite easily (the only real upside of wool is it is very warm and comfortable to sleep in), and no amount of wool will replace the other 95% of my clothing, which is mostly synthetic. Well, except for down, obviously, which is the only thing actually superior to the synthetic counterparts (and even that many people avoid, when travelling in rainy/wet regions). Everything else... It's not even a serious descission, it just isn't something anybody who ever did "serious mountaineering" would argue about, the vast majority of your gear is synthetic, and not because it's cheaper (it absolutely isn't cheap). It just the only viable option. Even something you could potentially replace with cotton (IDK, a backpack?) would weight a ton.
It's extremely practical. We have cotton, linen, and wool as great amazing fabrics. Drawstrings replace elastic.
I do hate fast fashion, but I can think of many exceptions where natural fibers won't cut it. There is no natural fabric product on the market that can properly replace lightweight, waterproof clothing. Waxed cotton is waterproof but heavy. Rubber is not breathable. Technical synthetics like Goretex have its issues (low durability, high cost, coated with PFAS), but it sure beats getting hypothermia.
It's a rare exception that natural fibers won't serve. Alaska, Arctic circle, Antarctica, disaster prep.
You don't need lightweight waterproof clothing, you just like it. Getting a little sweaty under a non-breathable fabric or getting wet but staying insulated with wool will be just fine. Umbrellas are great as well.
What beats lightweight breathable fabric is not desecrating the planet.
It seems plastic in fabrics can mostly be replaced with cotton.
Cotton production, however, is extremely resource-intensive (particularly water) to the point of unsustainability – and it's largely grown in parts of the world that are likely to suffer catastrophic droughts in the future.
Most cotton production in the US is not irrigated.
The problem with farming resource calculations and fearmongering, is often they measure water usage of a particular crop without really considering where the water came from.
Wouldn't you say crops grown with just water from the rain were using water with perfect sustainability?
It's extremely practical. We have cotton, linen, and wool as great amazing fabrics. Drawstrings replace elastic.
In my opinion, no natural fabric is as comfortable as synthetics. But I have cotton bedding and curtains. I think these are higher priority: bedding is used while you're lying close to it and easily able to inhale any dust, and curtains are exposed to sunlight that can weaken the fabric and make it break down more easily. They're also both large, meaning there's more plastic to be released. Carpet also seems a high p…
It doesn't need to be comfortable, it needs to not lay waste to the planet and shrink your balls.
It's extremely practical. We have cotton, linen, and wool as great amazing fabrics. Drawstrings replace elastic.
Nothing is replacing nylon where it is best used anytime soon.
We can replace Nylon with get this, poorer alternatives, if we gave a shit about the environment. I know it's unthinkable to switch to a worse product or user experience, but imagine caring more about the health of the planet.
Does someone have good papers on the negative effects of microplastics (ideally on humans)? A while back I tried to look for those, and it was nontrivial to find papers that would conclusively show that they are harmful, and the mechanisms of this harmfulness. There's a ton of press about where they are (everywhere) but (as a layman) you could argue it's because they're not very reactive, and this lack of reactivity…
"Being there" can be harmful in and of itself. Blocking receptors, clogging up conduits, etc. As I understand it, this is why certain elemental metals are so toxic: They're big atoms that deposit in harmful places and can't be effectively filtered out.
Small amounts of mercury and aluminum have been shown to be safe in the bloodstream. The dose is the poison
Does someone have good papers on the negative effects of microplastics (ideally on humans)? A while back I tried to look for those, and it was nontrivial to find papers that would conclusively show that they are harmful, and the mechanisms of this harmfulness. There's a ton of press about where they are (everywhere) but (as a layman) you could argue it's because they're not very reactive, and this lack of reactivity…
You can back that question up one level to "what are the biological effects of plastics?" And the answer is, broadly, they mimic hormones. Compounds in plastics can activate endocrine receptors because they are similar enough to hormones which are more or less everywhere across the animal kingdom. Sometimes it can be hard to pin down the specific negative effects in isolation, but there are some pretty clear metrics.…
The most common plastic, PET, is inert and does not mimic hormones