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

321–330 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#321

Post by josephcsible »

Jolter wrote: post #215
josephcsible wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tetraethyl lead was actually toxic too. What incentive led the avgas industry to replace it before it was banned?

Not sure what point you’re trying to make with that. I don’t know this stuff but I know how too look it up on Wikipedia, and it looks to me like it was phased out because regulators threatened a ban: “In November 2008, National Air Transportation Association president Jim Coyne indicated that the environmental impact of aviation is expected to be a big issue over the next few years and will result in the phasing out…

Yes, they threatened a ban and set a timeline to phase it out, but unleaded avgas became available before leaded avgas became unavailable.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#322

Post by edflsafoiewq »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #22
mc32 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already an XVIII century technology and WWII popularized option called millerain. But it requires some maintenance and isn’t “light” as preferred by cyclists and runners.

Odd choice. Writing “18th” is faster for the writer and the reader.

Using Roman numerals for centuries is conventional in Romance languages.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#323

Post by wolverine876 »

topaz0 wrote: post #265
wolverine876 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the early 2000s there was a war on natural fats. Nutritionists declared all fat bad. We now know that to not be the case. Saturated fats were and remain to be generally thought unhealthy (if we say things like 'all' or 'always', we're almost certainly spreading misinformation; the world doesn't work that way). Other fats (polyunsaturates and monounsaturates) are believed to be healthy or neutral. There is ongoin…

"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.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#324

Post by topaz0 »

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.

Even academic articles call it that, e.g.: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24911982/ from 2007

The first paragraph of the introduction, in case you don't have access:

> Since medical research first established a potential link between dietary fat intake, obesity, and cardiovascular disease [1], multiple components of the public health continuum have waged war on dietary fat. That war has generally been successful, not necessarily at preventing obesity or heart disease but at convincing Americans that dietary fat is bad for us.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#325

Post by Jolter »

josephcsible wrote: post #321
Jolter wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what point you’re trying to make with that. I don’t know this stuff but I know how too look it up on Wikipedia, and it looks to me like it was phased out because regulators threatened a ban: “In November 2008, National Air Transportation Association president Jim Coyne indicated that the environmental impact of aviation is expected to be a big issue over the next few years and will result in the phasing out…

Yes, they threatened a ban and set a timeline to phase it out, but unleaded avgas became available before leaded avgas became unavailable.

Because the regulators weren’t stupid. They knew an overnight ban would ground flights (impacting jobs, economy in remote areas etc) so they gave the industry some leeway.

I can only assume that current regulators don’t have an incentive to wait when it comes to this problem. Perhaps they think not too many job are impacted, and no remote village will go without their mail service, etc?

Personally I don’t have a problem with some middle-and-upper class cyclists having to use regular Gore-Tex for their leisure activities so my kids don’t get poisoned. They’re not coming to take away your existing jacket, just continue biking like you’re used to…

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#326

Post by devoutsalsa »

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.

SciShow did a video on this.

“Why Isn’t Cling Wrap As Good As It Used To Be?”

https://youtu.be/CXsE6SlLa58

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#328

Post by wolverine876 »

topaz0 wrote: post #324
wolverine876 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

Even academic articles call it that, e.g.: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24911982/ from 2007 The first paragraph of the introduction, in case you don't have access: > Since medical research first established a potential link between dietary fat intake, obesity, and cardiovascular disease [1], multiple components of the public health continuum have waged war on dietary fat. That war has generally been successful, no…

If we search databases we can find many phrases, including in random papers with 5 cites. The language has the same impact no matter who uses it.

Don't you see the impact of the Internet and its dialog on our society? Let's do something better.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#329

Post by jabl »

tartoran wrote: post #305
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…

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.

Indeed. Over here every slightly larger supermarket has an aisle full with various Teflon cookware. Cast iron and stainless? Nowhere to be seen, you have to go to some specialty shop to find them. They last forever, so the market must be tiny compared to all the coated stuff that wears out in a few years.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#330

Post by jabl »

idontwantthis wrote: post #307
senderista wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nikwax at least is flourine-free, but yes, AFAIU most waterrepellent sprays contain PFAS.
Post reply on HN