A Vote for Wool

[Ian.MacAllan]

The BBC reports yet another form of pollution: tiny particles of synthetic fibers released by washing synthetic fabrics. Worst effect: they are in the food chain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16709045

.

[Laird_M]

Would get my vote except for the outrageous cost of wool garments and also the apalling quality of some of these over priced items.
Wife paid £70 for a gorgeous burgundy merino jumper n the sales for me for Xmas 2010. After a few wears and one wash it was already falling apart and the 'very reliable store' didn't want to know..

So long as you can get a PV kilt for £40-£50 pounds, a lot of us can't afford £300+, they'll still outsell for most of us.

And yes, I do understand about the looming, etc, so I'm not bashing the 'real' kilt makers, just saying probably a lot of us just can't afford them.

[Kilted Karl]

The BBC reports yet another form of pollution: tiny particles of synthetic fibers released by washing synthetic fabrics. Worst effect: they are in the food chain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16709045

.

I think it is just silly.

But... I really like wool and hate synthetics. So I would not mind seeing more people wear wool of their own accord. The price might come down then too.

Your Obedient Servant,

Karl

[Chas]

The BBC reports yet another form of pollution: tiny particles of synthetic fibers released by washing synthetic fabrics. Worst effect: they are in the food chain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16709045

So what are they saying? The micro fibres are in the food chain. But to be in the food chain, the fibres must be very 'micro'. So micro they can pass between the cells and into the animals blood stream. And there fibres must be inert. Otherwise the animals would be dying of some sort of 'synthetic fibre poisoning', but they are not. So all the phosphates, and sulphates and nitrates and all the other 'ates' are not as important as this 'microplastic'?

I think it was a slow news day.

Regards

Chas

[piperdbh]

I think it was a slow news day.

You mean the Beeb does that, too? I thought we had the monopoly on it of the west bank of the Pond.

[Tobus]

So what are they saying? The micro fibres are in the food chain. But to be in the food chain, the fibres must be very 'micro'. So micro they can pass between the cells and into the animals blood stream. And there fibres must be inert. Otherwise the animals would be dying of some sort of 'synthetic fibre poisoning', but they are not. So all the phosphates, and sulphates and nitrates and all the other 'ates' are not as important as this 'microplastic'?

I think it was a slow news day.

Regards

Chas

I was kind of wondering the same thing. It's very interesting to know that all these microfibers have ended up in the food chain, but what does it really mean? Can these things end up being like trans-fats one day, where they just keep accumulating in our bodies until they start clogging things up, or what?

Would get my vote except for the outrageous cost of wool garments and also the apalling quality of some of these over priced items.
Wife paid £70 for a gorgeous burgundy merino jumper n the sales for me for Xmas 2010. After a few wears and one wash it was already falling apart and the 'very reliable store' didn't want to know..

Wow, sorry to hear that. That does seem to be the downside of wool, especially in today's world. It just requires a different level of care, and isn't as sturdy or as inexpensive as the plastic alternatives. Wool has its advantages, of course, but most people seem to feel as you do: price and convenience are more important.

Honestly, though, I don't really see the plastic fibers ever going away. With the rising population of the world, I can't see how we could continue to use arable land on cotton and sheep grazing, when it will be more and more necessary to use it for food.

[Bugbear]

Just think, in a thousand years, they will be eating contemporary kilts.

[tundramanq]

I always look for the funding sources for these studies - they are almost always "directed research" with predictable results. The is a ton of junk "science" of there. This one is the NSF - academics with no real world experience or track record.

[Tobus]

I always look for the funding sources for these studies - they are almost always "directed research" with predictable results. The is a ton of junk "science" of there. This one is the NSF - academics with no real world experience or track record.

Whoa, hold on there! Are you claiming that this information is false?

Thus far, I haven't seen them make any suggestions on what should be done, or even say that it's a problem which requires action. They've merely pointed out what they've found. How is this "junk science" with "predictable results"?

I do realize, of course, that a lot of studies are politically motivated, or are easily run away with by people with agendas. But let's not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater just yet. These "academics with no real world experience or track record" have done quite a bit of research on this matter, following where the clues lead them. What possible reason should we have to disregard their findings?

[tundramanq]

I worked with them for 24 years at a national lab.