Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

Poor people and cyclists killing the oceans

I love it when my instincts triumph over popular marketing. For years during which we were beseiged with margarine advertising and whorish doctors telling us to eschew butter and olive oil in favour of a factory-made ersatz wartime ration, I ignored them all. Now margarine, we're told, is the new asbestos. 

And so with clothing. Not only have I ever declined to wear anthing with anyone else's name, escutcheon or initials on the outside of the garment, I have obstinately stuck to wool, cotton, leather, silk and linen as clothing materials. The exception is polycotton 'blue collar' workwear which I import from the US firm Dickies, which is incredibly well made and long-lived. 

Again, I've been vindicated. Artificial fibres such as Nylon, Lycra, Acrylic, Polyester, Nylon, Spandex, Rayon and Terylene and other oil-based polymers release microfibres in enormous numbers into the rivers and sea every time they're washed. These indestructible microfibres accumulate in marine species, and are slowly killing many fish and marine creatures. 

However, educating people to eschew man-made fibres manufactured by the global corporate chemical oligopolies in favour of natural fibres that can be made on a domestic scale if necessary really won't have much mileage. The people who fund research want more man-made products from their huge belching factories, not fewer. 

So what's the result? 

Well, they find some gullible and credulous newspaper such as the Guardian to print an article blaming the marine pollution on washing machines that don't filter the microfibres, rather than man-made fibres themselves. The way is then open for the EU to ban washing machines that don't filter out the 700,000 harmful microfibres per synthetics wash, and for washing machine manufacturers worldwide to cash in on compulsory new, more expensive, more complex and shorter-lived next-generation washing machines. 

Sometimes you have to admire their chutzpah

Postscript - Whatever happened to the 'polluter pays' principal? Should we not be charging massive cleanup costs to BASF, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, AkzoNobel and the like? 


wiggiatlarge said...

If the Guardian comments are anything to go by the solution is wash a lot less, these people are expecting to be taken seriously, when really they should be taken away.

Rush-is-Right said...

It will be news to most of us that Grauniad readers wash at all.

Anonymous said...

I am with you on this Raedwald, since I first heard about trans-fatty acids, I have been using the best quality butters and dairy products that I can, as mentioned the other day… There was a period of around one year when I became a strict vegetarian in an attempt to control Crohn’s disease… It had the opposite effect and I returned to products from Wholefood in Paddington Street, which is where I first encountered Plaw Hatch Farm (the bio-dynamic people). The same company had a butchery a couple of doors along the road, where meat was hung and killed at named farms. This was at the back end of the 70’s, the company was part owned by Yehudi Menhuin. For a long time, I one of those rare people in south-east London that kept chickens for eggs and the occasional pot-au-feu.

I wear clothes mainly produced in the British Isles of natural materials and without external labels, I have always refused to PAY to advertise a company’s products, even though I acknowledge it is a very clever ruse by the companies concerned. There are plenty of good British companies selling fine clothing, some of which have been around since the 1700’s. My single exception is shoes, I like my Ecco Gore-tex lined leather shoes, my feet used to get destroyed by hard leather soles, to say nothing of the effects of rain and snow.

The internet is very good for sourcing the kind of usually smallish companies that do pay attention to these details. Indeed that medium has taught me much in the years since I first signed up with first IBM Global Network and then very quickly afterwards, demon in 1991.

On a slightly different tack, I once saw a document which talked about the effective banning of hemp and its subsequent renaming to ‘marijuana’, a Mexican word which suggests that this is the sort of garbage feckless Mexicans use…

I haven’t looked so I am not sure whether the paper is still there, but at one point, it refers to Henry Ford, designing the Model T so that as a people’s car, it would run on hemp oil, its body work was to be made of ‘doped’ hemp cloth… :). The companies that you mentioned in your piece, lobbied hard to tax these cheap products out of the market place, by association with the other properties of some parts of this very useful plant. Queen Elisabeth built an empire with it.

Anyway, the point I am trying to add here to your excellent piece, is that they knew back in the early 1900’s that what they had to sell, was more expensive to produce and definitely less good for the environment.

The same companies are now at the front of the queue lobbying for their partner governments to force any real environmentally cleaner producers out of the market through further unfair taxation and regulation in order to hold on to their various monopolies.

As long as there are gullible (fascist state) lefties and their mouthpieces’ extant, there will be blind believers coming out of the universities ranting about global warming, whilst waving their iProducts about.

Rant over…


Anonymous said...

I can't wear those shitty nylons/ polyamides, my skin won't allow it.

Wool and Cotton only for me and leather boots, shoes for work, leisure.

Don't get me onto Phthalates and 'endocrine disruption' et bloody cetera. Honestly, we do not know what we do!............

The PILL and Oestrogen sloshing around in UK drinking water and vehicles pumping NO/NO₂ into the air, heavy metals, nuclear testing etc, etc, etc.

Whereas, CO₂ is benign, beneficial life giving gas - WTF?

Budgie said...

Some doctors may indeed have been whorish ... but it was the government that pushed the "low fat", and reduced animal fat, propaganda as can easily be verified by checking on the internet (below).

And before any Corbynasties or Grauniads claim the "health authorities" merely "colluded" with the food industry, the boot was firmly on the other foot. Personal experience of one food firm I visited revealed endless trouble converting from (beef) dripping to vegetable oil in its products. That move was imposed by the government and not voluntary.

From the Verve (and similar from other sources):
"For decades, the accepted dietary wisdom has been to eat a low-fat diet, minimizing the intake of saturated fat in particular. This has been the official advice from the United States since 1977 and was echoed by the United Kingdom in 1983 ..."
"At the time of issuing the original 1977 Dietary Goals for the United States, better known as the McGovern report, the Senate Committee's lead nutritionist, Dr. Hegsted of Harvard University, admitted that the evidence base for the advice was somewhat lacking."

Budgie said...

Verge, not Verve.

G. Tingey said...

One slight correction
IIRC "Rayon" is in fact - cellulose i.e. Wood fibre.
It will break down naturally, though quite slowly.
# Agree re all the others though.