5 ms·

Fluorocarbons are ubiquitous. Fluorocarbons are basically magic when it comes to repelling water. Nordic skiing (and to a lesser extent, downhill skiing) have

by strstr 6y ago

Fluorocarbons are ubiquitous. Fluorocarbons are basically magic when it comes to repelling water. Nordic skiing (and to a lesser extent, downhill skiing) have been going through a bit of a reckoning trying to remove them from competitions. Fluorowaxes are very effective for gliding quickly in wet conditions. The fact that they are melted during application makes them particularly pernicious. Fluorocarbons are also ubiquitous in water repelling in clothing. Some of the more expensive brands of outdoor wear have moved to shorter chain fluorocarbons, but they haven't eliminated their use. From Arcteryx: "... non-PFC [water repellant] treatments... have fallen short of the level of performance and durability we deem imperative". It's likely less urgent with clothing, since these compounds are quite stable when left alone at normal temperatures.

mellavora 6y ago
Does 'left alone at normal temperatures' include the inside of a washing machine? Probably not a big issue, if the care instructions say 'cold water wash only' and if people read/follow the care instructions.
- strstr 6y ago
  Most people avoid washing waterproof gear often (and particularly not at high temps), since it’s believed to damage the waterproofing. It’s particularly bad if you use normal detergent. That, indirectly, answers your question: it must leech in any conditions that damage its effectiveness.
  - sedachv 6y ago
    > Most people avoid washing waterproof gear often (and particularly not at high temps), since it’s believed to damage the waterproofing. Which is completely wrong. The PTFE pores will get clogged with skin oil, leading to more internal condensation, and the wax (the part referred to as "Durably Water Repellent," which is a hugely fraudulent marketing claim, as there is nothing durable about it) impregnated into the outer woven textile layer is less effective if there is moisture-wicking dirt on the outer layer, or the wax has rubbed off. In fact the wax is melted into the yarns of the outer woven fabric at about 40°C. To "re-activate" the DWR, most manufacturers recommend putting the garment in the dryer at 40°C for about half an hour. This re-melts the wax and wicks it into the parts of the yarn where it has rubbed off. Incidentally, Arc'Teryx recommends washing PTFE garments at 40°C as well. The biggest scam in the waterproof-breathable garment industry (and that is saying a lot) are the so-called "2.5 layer" garments. Instead of being sandwiched between two woven textile layers, the PTFE film is coated directly on the inside of the outer layer, then some kind of ink or paint (yes, really) is printed over the PTFE layer for "durability." In 2.5 layer garments, the PTFE will start to flake off in a couple of years at most from abrasion with the clothes you wear underneath and bending and flexing of the outer textile layer (this has nothing to do with the acidity of skin oil - another completely fraudulent marketing claim I have seen as an attempt by retailers/manufacturers to deny warranty claims for "improper care"). These flakes (which is where all the PTFE is) will end up going down the drain, and you will have a ruined garment that is impossible to repair. 2.5 layer garments continue to be sold, because the manufacturing process is so cheap. I do not understand how there has not been a class-action lawsuit about this yet.
    - ip26 6y ago
      I do not understand how there has not been a class-action lawsuit about this yet. They meet the desires of most customers. For most people, they want an inexpensive jacket, they wear it pretty infrequently, and by the time it starts to fail in 2-5 years they're ready to get something new. It's a good thing if you can keep your DWR garment clean enough that it doesn't need to be washed often. Avoid sweating on it as possible, for example.
koboll 6y ago
>Fluorocarbons are also ubiquitous in water repelling in clothing. Some of the more expensive brands of outdoor wear have moved to shorter chain fluorocarbons, but they haven't eliminated their use. From Arcteryx: Are there any reliable figures on to what degree something like, say, wearing a pair of Arcteryx gloves on and off for a couple years, and frequently taking them off and then immediately eating, raises your risk of cancer? Asking for a... friend who just got some for Christmas and is now considering tossing them in the trash.
- animal_spirits 6y ago
  It seems like there aren't many studies around these types of chemicals yet
- driverdan 6y ago
  It's not clear yet but the dose makes the poison. The amount you get exposed to through Teflon clothing is unlikely to be enough to cause any issues. Animals and people having health problems were directly exposed to large amounts, such as working with them. Besides, they've been phased out of new clothing. If you got something new they shouldn't have the same PFAS and PFOS, although it wouldn't be surprising if the new shorter chain replacements have similar issues.
  - mordechai9000 6y ago
    > Animals and people having health problems were directly exposed to large amounts, such as working with them. Or contaminated ground water.
- ip26 6y ago
  I would focus on eliminating nonstick cookware from your kitchen long before worrying about clothing. Maybe a RO water filter for your kitchen.
  - nate_meurer 6y ago
    No, nonstick cookware contributes no significant fluorocarbons to your diet. Nonstick cookware uses PTFE, which is a polymer that doesn't release its constituent fluorocarbons under any circumstance. Even overheating a pan won't release any significant amounts of PFAS. It will release other poisonous chemicals, but that's a different issue.
Gravityloss 6y ago
In competition it shouldn't matter. If everyone glides less, it's just the same for everyone. What's the problem? A complete ban should be effective at the start of the next season.
- ip26 6y ago
  From what I read, main issue is a ban immediately creates permanent enforcement overhead. You have to continually test people's skis for fluoro-doping.
  - umvi 6y ago
    > You have to continually test people's skis for fluoro-doping. Why not just only test the winner of every competition? As soon as winner crosses finish line, confiscate skis for testing. Negative = win, positive = disqualified. Ah, but then I suppose you have to test 2nd place's skis to see if they deserved to be bumped to first in the case of DQ... and this process has O(n) worst case where you would have to test literally every competitor's skis to find a winner... I suppose you could just say "if you are in top 3 and you cheated, you are disqualified for life and nobody gets that medal" and then just let the communities sort it out.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
      The problem with disqualifying someone for life is that people will start to dope each other's skis.
      - MichaelZuo 6y ago
        Well hopefully it’s already the case that if someone intentionally sabotages another participant, and can be proven, they will receive a penalty worse than permanent disqualification.
derbOac 6y ago
The interesting thing is that there's very little evidence that HF actually waxes matter for performance in nordic skiing (http://www.skitestguys.com/fluorinated-waxes.html http://www.skitestguys.com/fluorinated-waxes.html). Maybe the ultra HF powder stuff but it's questionable. Hardness of wax matters, HF maybe not so much. Not sure how that plays into the larger debate about fluorocarbons, but sometimes I think the perspective frame can be shifted a bit.
- abakker 6y ago
  Ever used this stuff? https://www.zardozboost.com https://www.zardozboost.com It doesn't last long, but off the line it is like magic. Especially in sticky/wet snow. basically a pure form of the stuff we don't want in our water, though.

by strstr 6y ago

mellavora 6y ago

Does 'left alone at normal temperatures' include the inside of a washing machine? Probably not a big issue, if the care instructions say 'cold water wash only' and if people read/follow the care instructions.

strstr 6y ago
Most people avoid washing waterproof gear often (and particularly not at high temps), since it’s believed to damage the waterproofing. It’s particularly bad if you use normal detergent. That, indirectly, answers your question: it must leech in any conditions that damage its effectiveness.
- sedachv 6y ago
  > Most people avoid washing waterproof gear often (and particularly not at high temps), since it’s believed to damage the waterproofing. Which is completely wrong. The PTFE pores will get clogged with skin oil, leading to more internal condensation, and the wax (the part referred to as "Durably Water Repellent," which is a hugely fraudulent marketing claim, as there is nothing durable about it) impregnated into the outer woven textile layer is less effective if there is moisture-wicking dirt on the outer layer, or the wax has rubbed off. In fact the wax is melted into the yarns of the outer woven fabric at about 40°C. To "re-activate" the DWR, most manufacturers recommend putting the garment in the dryer at 40°C for about half an hour. This re-melts the wax and wicks it into the parts of the yarn where it has rubbed off. Incidentally, Arc'Teryx recommends washing PTFE garments at 40°C as well. The biggest scam in the waterproof-breathable garment industry (and that is saying a lot) are the so-called "2.5 layer" garments. Instead of being sandwiched between two woven textile layers, the PTFE film is coated directly on the inside of the outer layer, then some kind of ink or paint (yes, really) is printed over the PTFE layer for "durability." In 2.5 layer garments, the PTFE will start to flake off in a couple of years at most from abrasion with the clothes you wear underneath and bending and flexing of the outer textile layer (this has nothing to do with the acidity of skin oil - another completely fraudulent marketing claim I have seen as an attempt by retailers/manufacturers to deny warranty claims for "improper care"). These flakes (which is where all the PTFE is) will end up going down the drain, and you will have a ruined garment that is impossible to repair. 2.5 layer garments continue to be sold, because the manufacturing process is so cheap. I do not understand how there has not been a class-action lawsuit about this yet.
  - ip26 6y ago
    I do not understand how there has not been a class-action lawsuit about this yet. They meet the desires of most customers. For most people, they want an inexpensive jacket, they wear it pretty infrequently, and by the time it starts to fail in 2-5 years they're ready to get something new. It's a good thing if you can keep your DWR garment clean enough that it doesn't need to be washed often. Avoid sweating on it as possible, for example.

koboll 6y ago

>Fluorocarbons are also ubiquitous in water repelling in clothing. Some of the more expensive brands of outdoor wear have moved to shorter chain fluorocarbons, but they haven't eliminated their use. From Arcteryx: Are there any reliable figures on to what degree something like, say, wearing a pair of Arcteryx gloves on and off for a couple years, and frequently taking them off and then immediately eating, raises your risk of cancer? Asking for a... friend who just got some for Christmas and is now considering tossing them in the trash.

animal_spirits 6y ago
It seems like there aren't many studies around these types of chemicals yet
driverdan 6y ago
It's not clear yet but the dose makes the poison. The amount you get exposed to through Teflon clothing is unlikely to be enough to cause any issues. Animals and people having health problems were directly exposed to large amounts, such as working with them. Besides, they've been phased out of new clothing. If you got something new they shouldn't have the same PFAS and PFOS, although it wouldn't be surprising if the new shorter chain replacements have similar issues.
- mordechai9000 6y ago
  > Animals and people having health problems were directly exposed to large amounts, such as working with them. Or contaminated ground water.
ip26 6y ago
I would focus on eliminating nonstick cookware from your kitchen long before worrying about clothing. Maybe a RO water filter for your kitchen.
- nate_meurer 6y ago
  No, nonstick cookware contributes no significant fluorocarbons to your diet. Nonstick cookware uses PTFE, which is a polymer that doesn't release its constituent fluorocarbons under any circumstance. Even overheating a pan won't release any significant amounts of PFAS. It will release other poisonous chemicals, but that's a different issue.

Gravityloss 6y ago

In competition it shouldn't matter. If everyone glides less, it's just the same for everyone. What's the problem? A complete ban should be effective at the start of the next season.

ip26 6y ago
From what I read, main issue is a ban immediately creates permanent enforcement overhead. You have to continually test people's skis for fluoro-doping.
- umvi 6y ago
  > You have to continually test people's skis for fluoro-doping. Why not just only test the winner of every competition? As soon as winner crosses finish line, confiscate skis for testing. Negative = win, positive = disqualified. Ah, but then I suppose you have to test 2nd place's skis to see if they deserved to be bumped to first in the case of DQ... and this process has O(n) worst case where you would have to test literally every competitor's skis to find a winner... I suppose you could just say "if you are in top 3 and you cheated, you are disqualified for life and nobody gets that medal" and then just let the communities sort it out.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    The problem with disqualifying someone for life is that people will start to dope each other's skis.
    - MichaelZuo 6y ago
      Well hopefully it’s already the case that if someone intentionally sabotages another participant, and can be proven, they will receive a penalty worse than permanent disqualification.

derbOac 6y ago

The interesting thing is that there's very little evidence that HF actually waxes matter for performance in nordic skiing (http://www.skitestguys.com/fluorinated-waxes.html http://www.skitestguys.com/fluorinated-waxes.html). Maybe the ultra HF powder stuff but it's questionable. Hardness of wax matters, HF maybe not so much. Not sure how that plays into the larger debate about fluorocarbons, but sometimes I think the perspective frame can be shifted a bit.

abakker 6y ago
Ever used this stuff? https://www.zardozboost.com https://www.zardozboost.com It doesn't last long, but off the line it is like magic. Especially in sticky/wet snow. basically a pure form of the stuff we don't want in our water, though.