Say Goodbye to "Forever Chemicals" | Hacker News Reader

Say Goodbye to "Forever Chemicals"

patagonia.com

63 pointsaranchelk33 comments

Open articleView on HN

Good. 75% of water resistant products contain PFAS. The less PFAS is used, the better:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/26/water-re...

Drinking water also needs to be cleaned up:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/pfas-and-lead-lurk-in-us-dri...

even arcteryx is only now just starting to experiment with eliminating pfas use with some specific products

For real mountaineering equipment PFAS shouldn’t matter. The problems is everyone thinks they need mountaineering gear to go for a walk in a light drizzle.

arcteryx is not only a mountaineering brand. they produce non-mountaineering "urban" and commuter gear, and have the veilance line as well. these items are probably much more widespread than the mountaineering gear and i don't see the problem with it

Everyone buys Dead Bird because it’s marketed as mountaineering gear. Just go to their website… right now…

https://arcteryx.com/us/en/explore/whoweare/inspiration/

It’s pictures of people skiing helicopter accessible back country and hanging off an ice wall in crampons.

And all of their lifestyle adjacent segment exists under that umbrella.

You don’t need PFAS gear while walking around town because you simply don’t need your fabric to vent extreme moisture build up to prevent death from hypothermia like the people in their marketing copy.

Really makes you wonder how Hillary trained on Federation Peak and the Western Arthur Range in Tasmania, Fiordland on the South Island in New Zealand, then climbed Everest without PFAS gear.

https://arcteryx.com/ca/en/veilance i dont know about people in general but veilance specifically is popular in fashion worlds, not the sporting label

I'm not sure what your point is here, I looked at the veilance line and the examples I saw had (probable) PFAS synthetics mixed in with natural fibres, eg:

https://arcteryx.com.au/products/frame-ss-shirt-mens-2?varia...

FRAME SS SHIRT MEN'S Refined short-sleeve tee in exceptionally soft, breathable fine-gauge Merino wool jersey fabric. $250.00 AUD

(Note the .AU in URL - I get redirected to .AU being in .AU and not using a proxy)

    Ultra-fine Merino wool yarns bring naturally soft comfort and are known for odour resistance, temperature regulation, and moisture management. A nylon core adds durability.

The 'nylon' core is likely treated with highly fluorinated PFAS chemicals to make it waterproof.

Merino wool on it's own is lightly water shedding, especially the ultra fine fibres.

It's all new to me to be honest - more than a decade back I worked with locals here to introduce laser grading on their merino wool sorting and feedback into breeding for finer wool grades, living in an agricultural district a great deal of my clothing comes from local looms and tailors - bolts of cloth for grading not mass markets being used by locals to not lose skills - no nylon or synthetic additives.

PFAS are only used on outside (shell) layers in outdoor gear. It would do nothing on a wool t-shirt like that, you need a solid nylon barrier shell, which is then coated to make the surface hydrophobic so the water beads off.

Most consumer merino wool nowadays contains nylon because it makes it more durable- ultra soft merino wears out and develops holes rapidly without adding a small amount of nylon “scaffolding” which adds strength and chafe resistance. When merino socks first hit the market, for example, they would sometimes only last a few days of hiking… nowadays a nylon wool blend sock will last years and years of hard use.

These layers are not designed to be waterproof or hydrophobic- the opposite actually, they are designed to absorb moisture so they are “moisture wicking” keeping the skin dry.

yes i said they use pfas. my point was complaining about that / their slow resolution to it

Cheers - I wasn't sure why you raised the veilance line specifically, whether that was an example of PFAS (in the nylon) or not (PFAS free) - the landing pages here in .AU didn't make any specific mention either way and the link you gave got redirected to a country specific (Australia) variation .. so I was literally unsure if we're "on the same page" :)

No drama.

Everything waterproof will be worse to some degree, but that's okay. We learn to make this trade-off all the time; can't fight the physics of elements.

The more interesting area is in military applications, because China will continue to utilize PFAS technology and that gives a huge advantage in many areas.

The military has not and will not give up things that give a concrete advantage.

They rely on scaled-up manufacturing which is being shut down in the US.

This is true, but the military spends a tremendous amount to maintain the manufacturing they need within the US.

Why not use wax or oils, like animals do? Is it a veganism thing?

I know that you can make great paper straws, they just require beef or pork fat - so we get the PFAS straws instead

So what exactly is replacing PFAS?

I wouldn't be surprised if PFAS are being replaced by more than one chemical based on application, but specifically for the membrane layers, there's this:

https://www.gearpatrol.com/outdoors/a43241598/gore-tex-patag...

> That Hail Mary thrown out by Gore-Tex turned out to be ePe (expanded polyethylene): a new durable, waterproofing membrane that is just as efficacious at repelling water as Gore-Tex's original ePTFE formula — yes, that's short for Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene — but without fluorocarbons.

> So what exactly is replacing PFAS?

Good question!

Something chemical that will eventually also be proven dangerous, but only after a decade or so of exposure…

In another field, DDT was safe until it wasn’t, then came neonicotinoids…safe until they weren’t…and so it goes…

Polyethylene was discovered 125 years ago and billions of tons have been produced. We're surrounded by it all the time.

If it's harmful to humans, it's not harmful enough to make much of a dent in our health or lifespans.

I mean you could swap out the units and you’re describing uranium

Sure ... "uranium" without the radon gas breakdown production, heat generation from steady persistant radiation, without an isotope that can be used in an atomic weapon, etc.

All that aside .. just like uranium.

Oh, except it's not a natural element like uranium that's been present as part of the earth for 4 billion years, it's a synthetic first created here by humans somewhat more recently.

But sure. Just like uranium.

The polyethylene family is not like the PFAS family being discussed here - the biggest environmental issue with polyethylene to date is that it requires the introduction of specific bacteria in landfills to make it degrade. It does seem that it can be treated to recover usable oil .. which is either a pro or a con - but no known health issues (unlike, say, uranium).

> swap out the units

So your comment boils down to "magnitude is irrelevant".

By your logic (if you can call it that), there's no point in saying arsenic is more dangerous than milk because "swap out the units and you're describing milk".

Why study the effect of anything on anything when we could just swap out the units and everything is the same?

Hell, "swap out the units" and Earth is the same size as Jupiter, and it's just as hot as the sun!

Better late than never.

i don’t get something: why DWR and not proper waterproofing?

Breathability

gore-tex already solved this.

With PTFE. I'm not sure what the vague term "forever chemical" covers but PTFE is a perfluorinated alkane and is pretty "forever"ish.

Gore-tex is the same as other breathable water-resistant fabrics. They uses DWR, a form of PTFE, but sounds like switching to something better.

The difference with original 3-layer Gore-Tex is that membrane is protected so lasts longer.

Gore-tex only works if also coupled with PFAS DWR coatings on the outside. Otherwise the “pores” are clogged with a sheet of water, and cannot breathe.

DWR helps keep the garment's face fabric dry, which makes it feel lighter and warmer. This is in addition to a fully waterproof membrane like Gore-Tex that sits behind the face fabric.

DWR is also sometimes used by itself on some fabrics when the manufacturer wants higher breathability than you can get with a membrane, but still want a bit of weather resistance. A popular example from Patagonia would be the Houdini Jacket.

You need DWR because if your jacket gets soaked on the outside, your sweat will no longer evaporate through the jacket.

This is the proper answer: when water soaks the outer (non-GoreTex) layer, it doesn't breath anymore. One of GoreTex's fixes for that was to introduce jackets that don't have the outer (or inner) layer(s). It's just one big sheet of GoreTex "laminate" without being laminated to anything. "GoreTex Shakedry" is the search phrase you want, though they don't make the jackets anymore (because aforementioned "forever chemicals").

It's unfortunate, too, because the Shakedry jackets are what Gore has been promising for 50 years: waterproof yet breathable. I have one, and I am going to be very sad when it gets retired. Packs small, completely waterproof (I've used for 50 mile running races and stayed bone dry), yet breathable so you don't stew in your own juices (see "50 mile race" above).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com