The more I hear about Gore-Tex, (and PTFE and PFOA, the chemicals Gore-tex and other Teflon stuff is created from) the more I think this is one of those chemicals that we'll look back on in 50 years like we now look at leaded gasoline.
Besides being known as deadly to parrots, I think studies (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28913736/) are starting to reveal that there are risks with PTFE and PFOA that need more research.
I try not to be alarmist about chemicals and am generally in favor of scientific progress, but this chemical (similarly to PCBs) seems like one of those "wonder materials" that's great for specific applications that turns out to be terrible for life and the environment as soon as people sit down and actually look at the effects over a long period of time.
Sure, it's toxic to parrots, if you burn the material and it decomposes. But how many materials aren't? Most plastic will produce highly toxic products when burned.
PTFE is produced from tetra-fluoroethylene, which is a gas, doesn't get into water supplies.
And PTFE is very non-toxic. That's why we use it in medical implants.
PFOA was phased out in US and EU AFAIK, but was for a long time used for making PTFE while contaminating water supplies and drinking water. There were many lawsuits in the USA, see links at end. But note that there are many more potentially dangerous PFAS chemicals that are still used in EU and USA (see links).
Also, the PTFE molecule is not a hydrocarbon like most-plastics, it's a fluorocarbon; so you didn't really give a good argument against the idea that people may regret producing a lot of PTFE.
I'm referring to the entire chemical industry. This thread is chock full of people saying "Teflon = Bad" when it was manufacturing safety and (maybe) the practice of ignoring warnings and grilling with teflon pans that were bad. It's an amazing material and it would be a shame to see it memed out of existence.
This kind of thing has happened before. If we (USA) hadn't stopped rolling out nuclear in the 80s, we'd be off coal/gas by now, instead of maybe several decades from now after pumping ungodly amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Anti-vax and anti-fluoride need no introduction. Agrotech probably receives the most hate per unit of actual sin -- it's an odd week that I don't hear someone patting themselves on the back for choosing a product that is almost certain to be worse for the environment because an upscale vendor successfully applied misleading differentiation tactics to convince them of the opposite.
Indiscriminately attacking progress and throwing the baby out with the bathwater has become a national passtime that shows every indication of getting worse before it gets better. Teflon seems to be another instance of this trend.
Well that just messed with my head. For some reason (advertising? confusion? stupidity?) I had thought that Gore-Tex was based on a special weaving technique and use of special acrylic fibres... Wikipedia says `It is composed of stretched polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), which is more commonly known by the generic trademark Teflon.`
British invented a tightly woven cotton called Ventile for RAF pilots, which is waterproof, windproof and breathes quite well when not wet.
It has some disadvantages, but it's natural, it doesn't burn and it doesn't make funny noises. There are even some certified organic variants made in Switzerland by Stotz. Many manufacturers in Germany, Scandinavia and UK are adding this to some of their jackets, so it's worth looking around.
Else, Paramo has developed a clever cloth called Analogy, which works in a manner similar to animal fur to push rain out and keep you warm. It's not perfect either, and it's based on synthetic fibers, but it doesn't have nasty plastic coatings. It's used by some mountain guides in my region, and when I asked they were quite satisfied.
Ventile, long staple cotton, works by absorbing and swelling with water; "closing" the weave and preventing further water from getting in. However, the inner surface of the fabric is still wet, so your clothes underneath the jacket can still get wet through capillary action. So to mitigate this, oftentimes manufacturers will use two layers of Ventile or put a wool liner underneath the shoulders.
Also, once thoroughly soaked through, it will take just as long to dry as regular ol' cotton. This is why Stotz still treats their version, EtaProof, with DWR.
I think Ventile is great, but I think it's better suited for situations where you'll return to a heated shelter at the end of the night.
Pilots spend most of their time flying over either friendly territory or open water. Assuming they survive the crash intact, cold is overall their #1 threat.
I think there are already alternatives. Dyneema fiber is superior to GoreTex in almost any way but price (I have ultralight backpacks made of the stuff and are amazing). Moreover, they are more resistant to UV light than other polymers, lowering the chance they end up as microplastics.
If, instead, you are looking for waxable gear, have a look at Fjällraven G-1000 series of products. They cost a penny, but they are ultra sturdy and, in general, top-notch outdoor gear. Moreover Fjällraven should be one of the more environmental friendly brands for technical gear ATM.
You are correct, but I believe there were experiments about having micropores to let moisture escape. Also, I think it can be loosely wooven to have some degree of breathability. I think nobody invested in it yet with regards to clothing because prices would go through the roof.
I have a couple of pants made from G-1000, and I really like it's properties (light, durable, will not retain much water, can be made water-repellent with wax), but it actually is made from 65% polyester and 35% cotton [1].
They have a few different versions now, but the key to the membrane is that it’s really thin. It’s not like most average Joes can make their own even if they buy a bunch of PTFE pellets. It’s also overkill for most people and daily life, but Gore Tex (or some of the newer competitors) is worth it when backpacking or biking; you don’t want to carry the weight of a waxed canvas jacket for a long trip.
Is there any reason why aerogel (e.g. PyroGel) hasn't caught on as an insulation for winter jackets? The demos look pretty impressive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Ig8rW80uk
The first jackets using Aerogel as insulation are just hitting the market. https://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-das-parka/85350.html?... is one example. The previous version of this jacket is a cult favorite; curious to see what reviews of the new Aerogel version look like.
Interesting. I was wondering since I've felt cold in almost every Gore-tex jacket I have worn. Also it would seem to me that using a really thin layer of the aerogel stuff could prevent overheating, keep warm while being stupidly thin and impressive.
Gore-Tex is not meant to insulate unless you're talking about just the bare skin feel against the inside of the jacket. Some Gore-Tex jackets had a mesh liner which helps alleviate that cold surface feeling (and protect the teflon layer).
If you're interested in insulation for high-exertion activities, Polartec Alpha is now the bee's knees.
Without special treatment aerogel would be damaged by movement and moisture that is common with a jacket. It’s also very costly to produces compared to other insulating materials.
I have had several wool coats and none of them have been at all rain repellent. I’ve also worn many pure wool jumpers and hats in the rain, again none of them holding off anything more than the lightest drizzle.
What sort of wool is good for keeping off the rain?
Edit: Wearing (only) a damp wool jumper is fine if you’re up a mountain and it’s not too windy or freezing cold, but I’d still prefer to be dry!
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. By thick rainy weather I love nothing more than a coarse knitted woolen sweater and a heavy tweed jacket. It's warm, breathable and I'll never stay so long under the rain that it's soaked.
As far as strictly waterproofing goes, you do need coating or some hybrid material with PU weaved in. IMO it's more useful as a wind barrier than anything else.
Gore-Tex has always been way overrated. It's willingness to debond with relatively little use, destroys its long term utility. There are better waterproof linings that will last. Ventilation can be provided by openings in the garment.
A very similar product to what you are thinking of does exist - it's called Ventile. It is basically pure cotton woven extremely tightly making it waterproof. It has been around since the 1920s and is still used to make coats today.
Yep, the science is in. Lead, asbestos, DDT, PCBs, and PTFE/PFOS/PFOA.
3M Scotchgard (spray-on water-repellent for materials) was mostly PFOS, now it's PFBS.
Hipora, OTOH, is silicon-based. SympaTex is polyester-based.
On another note: I felt extremely stupid paying $300 for a Columbia Elite running rain jacket with Gore-Tex, with a lifetime warranty and bought from their store in Seattle, that subsequently disintegrated into god-knows-what and they wouldn't honor it. Never again: Gore-Tex or Columbia.
Comparison table of water-resistance and breathability of water-resistant fabrics:
Everything will kill you, in sufficient quantities. The question is whether its use outweighs the risks, and I'd venture to say PTFE if called upon to settle accounts has done the world more good than harm.
If you could snap your fingers and erase the environmental impact Goretex has had on the world, it would be the environmental equivalent of squishing a single ant. Yes, you did something but that something was ultimately pointless on a global scale.
If you’re not an alarmist, don’t wring your hands over Goretex. It is nothing like leaded gasoline.
The modern world is the blight on the environment. We just like it too much to ever change. We’d rather think Goretex or not separating glass from plastic or using/not using canvas shopping bags (depending on how contrarian you’re feeling) is the culprit. But really it’s us and how we like to live.
Also in Parkersburg, where the resulting long legal battle was portrayed in the movie Dark Waters last year. Another great addition to the genre of "Mark Ruffalo investigative thrillers".
Everything we know about this is anecdotal. But it seems true.
It's not hard to put a pan in a lab with a bird and see what happens. But no one will it seems.
Science is going backwards, we just sit around eating Kentucky Fried Chicken talking about how ethical we are.
And other than the fact we should never use anecdotal evidence when it's so easy to check, we also have no idea what temperatures it happens at or how bad it really is.
So it's hard to know if this is just crazy talk or something real.
As a parrot owner, this is true. It's a huge scare in the community because it's one of those facts not well known by even moderately-experienced/-researched owners.
It's almost a guaranteed kill to a parrot when heated. Very dangerous stuff.
The most notable thing about WL Gore is that they have a flat management structure. Everyone’s title is ‘associate’ in a way that’d be laughable at Walmart, they rank each other to distribute compensation, and they own the company.
But that’s what he’s testing - what happens when you sit on a wet seat or kneel on wet ground or have your feet pushed into wet boots. That’s what you need GoreTex for. It’s a stress test. They’re already trivially waterproof when just sitting there that’s obvious so no need to test it.
But the rig he made was meant to simulate the actual test of having a long thin tube of water sitting over a tiny section of the fabric. It introduces a lot more widespread stretching than the real test would, inflating the fabric like a balloon (not just simply applying pressure). I bet this affects the water resistance of the fabrics quite a lot, beyond what you'd normally apply to it. Do you stretch your knee fabric like a balloon when you apply pressure onto it to the ground?
> Do you stretch your knee fabric like a balloon when you apply pressure onto it to the ground?
When you kneel? Yeah it can be subject to a lot of stress as it's drawn taught over your knee. And if you had a heavy pack on it could be taking 150 kg.
If all you do in your Gore-Tex is stand still in the rain it's probably not a valid test - if you're using it for outdoors work then it is.
What he is testing is exactly what a column of water would do in a standard test. Re-watch the beginning and he talked about how to test it without the pump they would need at least a 92 foot long pipe. That would be 1,104 cubic inches of water, or 4.8 gallons of water, or about 40 lb, which would be 40 psi in the standard test. He is simply replicating the industry standard test that the manufacturers claim. You could argue that the test is flawed but literally every manufacturer uses it and I guarantee that 40 lb pushing down on a 1” by 1” square of fabric will stretch it.
In a standard test machine you clamp the material in such a a way as to not introduce deformities in the fabric.
I.e. the whole piece should start out flat, his test setup has it clamped around the end of a pipe. You can see in the video how some of the leaks and tears start at the stress points where the fabric is folded near the opening of the pipe.
It's meaningless to make any general assumptions about how such a non-standard test setup relates to how a fabric would perform in the standard test.
>> Among its varied applications, Gore-Tex is used in medical devices including heart patches, guitar strings, space suits, and vacuum bags.
I have always considered GoreTex to be one of those simple-but-brilliant inventions. Tiny pores to prevent water droplets, but still breathable, but I had no idea it was also used in medical devices or space!
Robert Gore was not the first to discover ePTFE (Gore Tex) material, but the prior inventor kept his invention as a trade secret. Robert Gore has defended his patent against original inventor, won, and then sued anyone who has uses equipment made by the original inventor.
> Early public disclosure is a linchpin of the patent system. As between a prior inventor who benefits from a process by selling its product but suppresses, conceals, or otherwise keeps the process from the public, and a later inventor who promptly files a patent application from which the public will gain a disclosure of the process, the law favors the latter. See Horwath v. Lee, 564 F.2d 948, 195 USPQ 701 (CCPA 1977). The district court therefore erred as a matter of law in applying the statute and in its determination that Budd's secret use of the Cropper machine and sale of tape rendered all process claims of the '566 patent invalid under Sec. 102(b).
It looks like there's an important distinction between patenting Gore-Tex the product, and patenting a process for manufacturing Gore-Tex.
TIL gortex generics is just teflon. Always avoided gortex products because they seem to insist on very visible branding, but guess I've owned gortex products all my life.
The very visible branding is because a) they work very closely with the products that get to use goretex, and they guarantee those products. So if I buy a Marmot rain jacket with goretex and I have a problem with it, I can go to goretex and they'll replace it. That's a pretty strong guarantee that consumers want to see very visibly. and b) they market hard to convince consumers that if it's not goretex, it won't be breathable. A bunch of competitors (outdry, event, neoshell, etc) popped up a few years ago and lots of companies switched to them from goretex, but goretex has since reeled them back in and now we see most companies using only goretex again.
I’d disagree that goretex is teflon. They have the same chemical formula but are clearly different. PTFE is used in laboratory glassware and would be neither gore-tex nor teflon.
I heavily favour goretex gear even when the item doesn’t really need to be waterproof. More than the membrane, I respect gear with the goretex label because of the durability standards they enforce on manufacturers using their product. I know that this piece has been independently tested and it will last me well for years before needing replacement.
Besides being known as deadly to parrots, I think studies (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28913736/) are starting to reveal that there are risks with PTFE and PFOA that need more research.
I try not to be alarmist about chemicals and am generally in favor of scientific progress, but this chemical (similarly to PCBs) seems like one of those "wonder materials" that's great for specific applications that turns out to be terrible for life and the environment as soon as people sit down and actually look at the effects over a long period of time.
Sure, it's toxic to parrots, if you burn the material and it decomposes. But how many materials aren't? Most plastic will produce highly toxic products when burned.
PTFE is produced from tetra-fluoroethylene, which is a gas, doesn't get into water supplies.
And PTFE is very non-toxic. That's why we use it in medical implants.
PFOA was phased out in US and EU AFAIK, but was for a long time used for making PTFE while contaminating water supplies and drinking water. There were many lawsuits in the USA, see links at end. But note that there are many more potentially dangerous PFAS chemicals that are still used in EU and USA (see links).
Also, the PTFE molecule is not a hydrocarbon like most-plastics, it's a fluorocarbon; so you didn't really give a good argument against the idea that people may regret producing a lot of PTFE.
Some links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...
https://theintercept.com/collections/bad-chemistry/
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/10/pfos-pfoa-epa-chemical-c...
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-p...
This kind of thing has happened before. If we (USA) hadn't stopped rolling out nuclear in the 80s, we'd be off coal/gas by now, instead of maybe several decades from now after pumping ungodly amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Anti-vax and anti-fluoride need no introduction. Agrotech probably receives the most hate per unit of actual sin -- it's an odd week that I don't hear someone patting themselves on the back for choosing a product that is almost certain to be worse for the environment because an upscale vendor successfully applied misleading differentiation tactics to convince them of the opposite.
Indiscriminately attacking progress and throwing the baby out with the bathwater has become a national passtime that shows every indication of getting worse before it gets better. Teflon seems to be another instance of this trend.
Damn....
Since learning about micro plastics from fabrics polluting our waterways, I'm keen to find alternatives.
I had an Australian style rain coat (dense weave, regularly reapply wax) as a kid. I couldn't find anything comparable locally.
Meanwhile, I got one of those fisherman jackets. I sweat so much, the only benefit I get is wind protection.
It has some disadvantages, but it's natural, it doesn't burn and it doesn't make funny noises. There are even some certified organic variants made in Switzerland by Stotz. Many manufacturers in Germany, Scandinavia and UK are adding this to some of their jackets, so it's worth looking around.
Else, Paramo has developed a clever cloth called Analogy, which works in a manner similar to animal fur to push rain out and keep you warm. It's not perfect either, and it's based on synthetic fibers, but it doesn't have nasty plastic coatings. It's used by some mountain guides in my region, and when I asked they were quite satisfied.
Also, once thoroughly soaked through, it will take just as long to dry as regular ol' cotton. This is why Stotz still treats their version, EtaProof, with DWR.
I think Ventile is great, but I think it's better suited for situations where you'll return to a heated shelter at the end of the night.
AKA people not exposed to the elements most of the time.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_A... 2. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/73143/is-the-f-...
If, instead, you are looking for waxable gear, have a look at Fjällraven G-1000 series of products. They cost a penny, but they are ultra sturdy and, in general, top-notch outdoor gear. Moreover Fjällraven should be one of the more environmental friendly brands for technical gear ATM.
[1] https://www.fjallraven.com/uk/en-gb/about-fjallraven/materia...
The materials all seem pretty boring sounding.
However things may have changed since then
https://www.outsideonline.com/1919251/forget-down—aerogel-in...
If you're interested in insulation for high-exertion activities, Polartec Alpha is now the bee's knees.
Barbour?
But one of the best materials for rain is still... wool.
What sort of wool is good for keeping off the rain?
Edit: Wearing (only) a damp wool jumper is fine if you’re up a mountain and it’s not too windy or freezing cold, but I’d still prefer to be dry!
Yes, you're wet, but you're still warm.
Many outdoorsmen prefer this to the uncertainty of being able to keep their gear dry.
As far as strictly waterproofing goes, you do need coating or some hybrid material with PU weaved in. IMO it's more useful as a wind barrier than anything else.
3M Scotchgard (spray-on water-repellent for materials) was mostly PFOS, now it's PFBS.
Hipora, OTOH, is silicon-based. SympaTex is polyester-based.
On another note: I felt extremely stupid paying $300 for a Columbia Elite running rain jacket with Gore-Tex, with a lifetime warranty and bought from their store in Seattle, that subsequently disintegrated into god-knows-what and they wouldn't honor it. Never again: Gore-Tex or Columbia.
Comparison table of water-resistance and breathability of water-resistant fabrics:
https://www.sierra.com/lp2/waterproof-guide/
If you’re not an alarmist, don’t wring your hands over Goretex. It is nothing like leaded gasoline.
The modern world is the blight on the environment. We just like it too much to ever change. We’d rather think Goretex or not separating glass from plastic or using/not using canvas shopping bags (depending on how contrarian you’re feeling) is the culprit. But really it’s us and how we like to live.
We should enjoy this ride while it lasts.
Many sources, but here's one https://pfasproject.com/hoosick-falls-new-york/
Everything we know about this is anecdotal. But it seems true.
It's not hard to put a pan in a lab with a bird and see what happens. But no one will it seems.
Science is going backwards, we just sit around eating Kentucky Fried Chicken talking about how ethical we are.
And other than the fact we should never use anecdotal evidence when it's so easy to check, we also have no idea what temperatures it happens at or how bad it really is.
So it's hard to know if this is just crazy talk or something real.
It's almost a guaranteed kill to a parrot when heated. Very dangerous stuff.
https://www.managementexchange.com/story/innovation-democrac... https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1984/04/30/g...
Did appreciate the breathability test though.
When you kneel? Yeah it can be subject to a lot of stress as it's drawn taught over your knee. And if you had a heavy pack on it could be taking 150 kg.
If all you do in your Gore-Tex is stand still in the rain it's probably not a valid test - if you're using it for outdoors work then it is.
In a standard test machine you clamp the material in such a a way as to not introduce deformities in the fabric.
I.e. the whole piece should start out flat, his test setup has it clamped around the end of a pipe. You can see in the video how some of the leaks and tears start at the stress points where the fabric is folded near the opening of the pipe.
It's meaningless to make any general assumptions about how such a non-standard test setup relates to how a fabric would perform in the standard test.
https://youtu.be/0e58SiFSxLs
I have always considered GoreTex to be one of those simple-but-brilliant inventions. Tiny pores to prevent water droplets, but still breathable, but I had no idea it was also used in medical devices or space!
A key paragraph from that ruling:
> Early public disclosure is a linchpin of the patent system. As between a prior inventor who benefits from a process by selling its product but suppresses, conceals, or otherwise keeps the process from the public, and a later inventor who promptly files a patent application from which the public will gain a disclosure of the process, the law favors the latter. See Horwath v. Lee, 564 F.2d 948, 195 USPQ 701 (CCPA 1977). The district court therefore erred as a matter of law in applying the statute and in its determination that Budd's secret use of the Cropper machine and sale of tape rendered all process claims of the '566 patent invalid under Sec. 102(b).
It looks like there's an important distinction between patenting Gore-Tex the product, and patenting a process for manufacturing Gore-Tex.
The headline as it is means nothing if you don't know that random trivia. The fact that he invented Gortex was pretty critical to this headline.
Next to "Intel Inside", I can't think of a more successful secondary brand in the consumer goods world.