Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

spambearpig t1_j6me8ui wrote

Considering this is a coating that will eventually wear off I’m not sure I can fully agree with this statement.

“Our research is pushing in a different direction, where we actually solve the problem rather than putting a Band-Aid on the issue.”

I think actually solving the problem is one where our clothes are made out of things that aren’t harmful to the environment.

Not to say this isn’t very positive and reducing a problem vastly is great. But a coating that will wear off over years is pretty much a Band-Aid.

Does it not mean that your clothes become less environmentally friendly the longer you keep them?

But making your clothes last a long time is in itself, environmentally friendly.

Not quite solved when it’s like that.

523

OfLittleToNoValue t1_j6moif1 wrote

"we fixed the problem by causing another problem" is kinda our thing.

Why use sustainable cotton when you can make a synthetic coating to slow down oil based plastics from degrading?

We are not a smart species. This just sounds like the next PFAS in 20 years

252

yoortyyo t1_j6mt4mx wrote

Wool is the only natural fiber used in cold, wet extremes. Synthetic insulation, wind and waterproofing are beyond dominant in that area.
Alternatives ate needed. PFC free waterproof breathable is out but niche so far.

Tldr. Cotton kills in cold & wet. Synthetics need sustainable fabrics that match synthetic’s qualities.

62

Zoomwafflez t1_j6n2frs wrote

While it's true synthetics get used a lot for outdoor clothing it's mostly a cost factor. There is no widely used insulation that's as good as down, there is no better shell material imo than wool. (Water resistant, maintaining 70% of it's insulation value when wet, durable, and flame retardant) Natural materials are heavier and more expensive though

15

wrsndede t1_j6num2a wrote

I wouldn't call wool water resistant. It wicks moisture and insulates even when wet. That's why it's a good base & mid layer, but not good as an outer shell.

16

yoortyyo t1_j6nvxl5 wrote

I would have to see real studies. I’ve been climbing, skiing and living outdoors my whole life. Newest fabrics are by far and away superior for outer layers and insulation often too. Even treated down fails before a synthetic

5

degmac113 t1_j6nfvur wrote

Hemp too. It's a pretty strong fabric, the plant grows relatively fast compared to cotton, and it uses less water as well

14

yoortyyo t1_j6nwr22 wrote

So far few outdoor performers from that fabric.
Again my position is research and development. I hate the footprint the best gear creates. I’m outside in non optional times and once your 7 miles out….

5

OfLittleToNoValue t1_j6mtdq6 wrote

What good is water proof clothing if it poisons the water and everything in it or feeds off it?

5

StormlitRadiance t1_j6nbzyb wrote

Bruh. if it's the difference between dying today of cold and dying of chemicals in a few decades, I'll take it.

10

uniquedifferences t1_j6nww9k wrote

Yeah, think of the billions of people who died, freezing in the cold, before we invented chemicals and plastics!

Dumping chemicals and plastic in the ocean is worth sacrificing tens of thousands of species of creatures, plants, and fungus, and billions of people.

Thank you for saving us all!

0

yoortyyo t1_j6nxkd0 wrote

Seal bladder clothes amd mukluks were the standard. Animals died by the trillions outfitting humans against cold. The lack of most mega fauna illustrates the challenges.

Alternative materials are needed.

The bulk of Goretex never goes outdoors. Just like SUV and trucks. Clothing is a status and fashion choice to talk to those around us.

4

uniquedifferences t1_j6pg2v7 wrote

We can make clothing in more environmentally friendly ways so we don't have to kill off everything that sustains us. We can all stop being ridiculous.

1

OfLittleToNoValue t1_j6nd79u wrote

Cool, so you're both short sighted and willing to harm others for your convenience.

−11

Zncon t1_j6nwoof wrote

Well the alternative is to round up a few billion people living in seasonally cold climates and move them closer to the equator.

3

Leafstride t1_j6n9r9i wrote

I love wool but I really wish it was more durable.

5

never3nder_87 t1_j6nu2qn wrote

Bamboo ticks a lot of the same boxes for me

6

Leafstride t1_j6nxlq2 wrote

Rayon is alright though I think lyocell is better than rayon since it's a bit more durable when wet. I'm currently a fan of wool/lyocell/nylon combo fabrics. You just can't be throwing them in a dryer.

3

podolot t1_j6nddpl wrote

Yep, in 20 years we will talking about super coating PFAs that are 10x more harmful.

56

ThaGerm1158 t1_j6nvtn2 wrote

An active individual can easily answer that question. Cotton sucks for many strenuous activities, period.

If you live in the north and are going hiking up a mountain through the snow, it can kill you. I leave in an hour to do just that. I will often put a cotton layer on in between synthetic layers, but that will usually come off as I get warm and it's always soaked. As long as you keep moving, you're fine. Get lost (and run out of calories or energy) or injured, and you can go into hypothermia in under an hour above 20f and significantly faster if there is wind or if it's any colder.

There has been some real improvement in wool products, and I'm switching over to products like Smartwool where I can.

To the "band aid" comments. No, it's not a silver bullet. Yes, we need to do better. Yes, it's better than doing nothing. Yes, this could be a step in the right direction.

Finally, it's early. Do we know if this process could become an at-home application? Then, you could reapply as needed and even retroactively apply to products that didn't include it initially.

5

Temassi t1_j6o1tgd wrote

Everyone going around making perfect the enemy of good.

3

asdaaaaaaaa t1_j6nby45 wrote

> Not to say this isn’t very positive and reducing a problem vastly is great. But a coating that will wear off over years is pretty much a Band-Aid.

Not if you're a company who advertises it as "environmentally safe" and reaps the profits unfortunately. I can see this being used in that way, and this is a perfect advertisement for that. As you said, doesn't really "help" the environment or problem at all aside from making things last a bit longer before they start shedding microplastics. Doesn't mean a company won't use this with manipulative advertising.

I mean, it's been what humanity as a whole has been doing forever. We discover some amazing perfect new solution and invest heavily, until 20 years later we learn it's not as good/safe as we initially thought.

5

StormlitRadiance t1_j6nbrvc wrote

It sounds like you're saying that doubling the life of our clothes isn't worth it because we can't make them last forever.

This is a plan that will result in a significant reduction of microplastic in washwater, even if the coating eventually does wear off.

1

Menthalion t1_j6novqo wrote

Seeing people in the west on average ditch clothing after wearing them for just half a year, and that clothing in majority contains synthetic fibres, I don't see what doubling the life will bring for most of the clothes. Your subarctic needs are completely insignificant in this scheme.

9