Inhalable textile microplastic fibers impair lung repair
biorxiv.org
biorxiv.org
But we're due for a serious re-evaluation of where it is appropriate to use it.
Single-use plastics have to be banned globally, outside of critical uses like medical. I know, good luck with this one.
Plastic fabrics need to be severely curtailed, as this study shows.
This is a matter do be checked with some detail, since some position against wool have become vocal: wool is, as expected, biodegradable (though it may be subject to chemical treatments that ruin this property); wool is recyclable, both as fabric and as industrial-use material (e.g. as an insulant); as a material for clothing, the excellent properties relative to the other options include durability (which of course - though nowadays the full importance of durability seems to be a neglected idea - reduces environmental impact); processes for the production of wool may entail some impact, independent from the material but related to the sheep.
One summary: https://thinkofthepandas.com/2022/01/13/is-wool-eco-friendly...
I suspect this is the massively buried lead here - one so huge and so buried that I'm having a hard time giving you the benefit of the doubt.
The lifecycle of wool itself is probably not at all the major concern. It will not take just a few more sheep to replace the entirety of the global use of polyester and other synthetics.
Livestock are notoriously land-intensive, and the reason behind much of the ongoing ecological devastation of places like the Amazon rainforest. Trying to pass those concerns off as minor considerations after the biodegradability and recyclability of wool is just... incredible.
Yes, but in most cases, the wool today is considered waste; the primary market value of sheep is between mowing fields naturally and the meat. Which is why the industry has died as it has.
You wrote «is»: did you mean «would be»? Who is «trying to pass those concerns off as minor considerations»?
There have been in some areas bureaucratic issues with wool, as if it were "warning-label class material": this has / has had people check a few facts.
Edit: which by the way means, some wool may have been treated in a way that raised concern in public health monitoring entities. Think of the Amazon, but do not forget those thing that are there touching your skin. You could want to look into it.
Anyway: when the issue is with production, maybe there are ways to partially fix it. Were the material toxic, you'd have in a way a bigger problem.
And anyway, surely the vast majority of us HN members reasons through quantities and vets the given puzzle pieces to at least some extent: as ericd noted, Cost/Risks/Benefit analysis are duly as what you have are options, with different tradeoffs and complications, and having further promising ones is certainly beneficial.
This issue, isnt restricted to clothing made of man made fibres, it will affect the leisure industry because tents & gazebo's are made of nylon and their exposure to the elements degrades them quickly. Footwear, trainers, sneakers watch how the likes of Nike handle this both for consumers and their employees.
Man made fibre's are everywhere and are the next Asbestos scandal, so watch how big business handles this one. The science will be restricted, there might be some private studies commissioned by some big names and the findings kept quiet. I've seen stock market listed supermarkets commission studies, results come back and it all gets hushed up!
A lot of Global businesses should best be viewed as a threat to your health!
Your politicians wont do anything about it either, they dont represent you they represent their unlined pockets!
Judging by this article this is because of the rise of mass-produced synthetic fibres and a collapse in the hospitality market due to covid: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-581...
So much for science and the precautionary principle, economics and the power of the free market, politicians and regulation :(.
WHO recently tightened PM2.5 guidance closer to zero and all the evidence so far is that the more we learn about PM1 and finer pollution, the more horrifying the health effects.
How is Airdog any different?
I don’t know input HEPA production, but if you throw them into household trash here in Germany they simply get burned.
The problem with HEPA filters are the destruction of resources to make them, the bad controls of their quality and their short lifespan (Cheap home HEPA filter needs exchanging every 3 months) and their high price (>30€).
[0] https://sharphome.eu/en/sharp/airpurifierhumidifier/en-kc-a5...
HEPA purifiers aren't trash, they are simply producing trash. For me that is a lesser evil to producing potentially dangerous chemicals in my home. Just like I accept using FFP2-masks that aren't reusable in contrast to cloth masks used at the start of the pandemic. There are other places where saving trash is has less negative impact than health products.
I’m a 15 year convert to wearing it daily. Whenever I try a “plastic” jumper on at the shops I can tell immediately it feels sweaty and uncomfortable…
Icebreaker seems like the biggest brand in merino, and their shirts are pretty good, very light and breathable, but a bit fragile (my jeans buttons seem to be forming holes in them somehow, all in the same spot). Big fan of their long underwear, too, makes a huge difference in the winter.
Woolly shirts are super soft, probably the most comfortable, and not too expensive, but even more fragile than icebreaker IME.
Still looking for the perfect shirt, but I’ve liked the ones I’ve had from all of these.
Definitely pricey, but looks promising.
For $5 a shirt, Gildan 100% cotton v-neck t-shirts allow you to buy a couple dozen and rotate through them for years.
That's where I'm currently at, I wanted to love wool, but I just didn't. I've had it on my list to give linen a shot.
Woolly, Icebreaker, Minus33, and I forget the other brand. These were all very bad, I kept the Icebreaker for a couple wears, but everything else I immediately returned.
Does this article says that people wearing polyester clothing are at serious risk?
The general principle is that if it can harm adults in high dosages it can equally harm newborns/toddlers in lower dosages due to smaller lung surface area and weight.
For example, is most of the plastic in bloodstreams due to plastic cookware, tap water, bottled water, sea fish, aquaculture fish, meat?
One article I met earlier in the year was about creating systems to tag microplastic, in order to follow its path: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30020879 ("New measuring method reveals there may be more plastic “on” than “in” your salad" (phys.org))
If anything out of scale alone the collective of cotton/wool/linen producers will likely have a lot less lobbying power than the industry around petro-chemical fibers.