4 ms·

From [0]: > Out of 38 products ordered from fast-fashion giants, CBC Marketplace found one in five items had elevated levels of chemicals, including lead, phth

From [0]: > Out of 38 products ordered from fast-fashion giants, CBC Marketplace found one in five items had elevated levels of chemicals, including lead, phthalates and PFAS. Lead, we know is bad. Pthalates were recently shown to be bad for brains of any age [1], on top of being bad for developing ones. PFAS, well, they bioaccumulate, and we probably should be worried about overexposure, with studies linking them to various health problems. So, yes, it's reasonable to assume that some clothing is subtly harming health. [0]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marketplace-fast-fashion-chemicals-1.6193385 https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/marketplace-fast-fashion-ch... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42069320 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42069320

llamaimperative 2y ago
I think it’s reasonable to assume that some clothing is harming health, and the degree to which it does is entirely unknown.
- smolder 2y ago
  The NPR article does talk about some directly observable effects like people having trouble breathing and rashes, or 'brain fog', though I suppose that's not all conclusively casually linked. Still, it's something worth thinking about, and something I feel is worth taking into account when you have the option of buying a garment consisting of only natural fibers versus something boasting it's wrinkle-free, or if you're deciding weather or not to buy the water repellent spray that the shoe store clerk is pushing, and so on.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Sorry I mean that "subtle" is probably too conservative a descriptor of the health effects. Subtle doesn't mean "low-medium confidence of significant effects," which I think is probably closer to the current assessment of the harm of these things.
    - smolder 2y ago
      Ah okay, you're right, I misunderstood you.
exmadscientist 2y ago
Honestly, if you have to choose between PFAS and phthalates... I'd probably take the PFAS. Pthalates are horrifying substances when you see what they can really do to human development.

llamaimperative 2y ago

I think it’s reasonable to assume that some clothing is harming health, and the degree to which it does is entirely unknown.

smolder 2y ago
The NPR article does talk about some directly observable effects like people having trouble breathing and rashes, or 'brain fog', though I suppose that's not all conclusively casually linked. Still, it's something worth thinking about, and something I feel is worth taking into account when you have the option of buying a garment consisting of only natural fibers versus something boasting it's wrinkle-free, or if you're deciding weather or not to buy the water repellent spray that the shoe store clerk is pushing, and so on.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Sorry I mean that "subtle" is probably too conservative a descriptor of the health effects. Subtle doesn't mean "low-medium confidence of significant effects," which I think is probably closer to the current assessment of the harm of these things.
  - smolder 2y ago
    Ah okay, you're right, I misunderstood you.

exmadscientist 2y ago

Honestly, if you have to choose between PFAS and phthalates... I'd probably take the PFAS. Pthalates are horrifying substances when you see what they can really do to human development.