Discard Your Fleece and Synthetic Clothing Immediately

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Except that it's not published in Nature, it's published in Nature Scientific Reports........
[edit: ................Since probably not a single person reading this has any care or interest in impact factors, I'll just say that not all peer-reviewed journals have the same standards for publication. Nature has very high impact factor and high standards of scientific rigor (though some crap still gets in),.............. But since we're bombarded with 'science' on a daily basis, maybe this helps folks better judge the quality of what they're reading.]

I think you are doing the community a great disservice by attempting (and failing) to dismiss the research as "fake science" or religious beliefs. Debate over discarding synthetic clothing is different from making bold, unsupported statements that science is fake.

1. Gathering specimens from all over the world and counting microfibers gives solid, objective data. Unlike climate change, there are no predictions based on some debatable model.
2. The research journal is peer-reviewed. Is it merely an opinion that the journal has low quality, or is there any have objective evidence of complaints (such as news reports) to back up to question the journal or the researchers? Is it possible that over-generalization is occurring?
3. The second article in question was published on nature.com, the same entity which produces Nature Magazine
4. If there is doubt about whether synthetic fibers are accumulating within marine life, one can merely google around to find many articles that report accumulation. To walk the walk, I challenge anyone to find any articles which state that fiber accumulation in marine life is debatable.
5. Here is an additional paper from the National Institute of Health which confirms the issue and cites a plethora of research on the topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28482459
6. Here is a link to a major manufacturer that acknowledges the accumulation of fibers and, very helpfully, compared to unsupported beliefs, offers advice on how to mitigate the issue: https://www.patagonia.com/blog/2017/02/an-update-on-microfiber-pollution/

I do not see how any reasonable person can disagree with the fact that synthetic fibers are accumulating in wildlife. There is much research to be performed to find out if, like other plastics, this material can concentrate toxic pollutants.
 
Last edited:
I think you are doing the community a great disservice by attempting (and failing) to dismiss the research as "fake science" or religious beliefs. Debate over discarding synthetic clothing is different from making bold, unsupported statements that science is fake.
Where did I say the science was fake? I said it's not particularly rigorous, and it's published in a journal with low standards. This is demonstrably true and easy for you to verify if you were so inclined.

You said you don't know what to think. I'm doing my best to help you evaluate the quality of this science. I promise I'm qualified to do so. Being confused about what constitutes quality science is at least as common as getting surprised by the weather on top of Mt. Washington. You don't need to be so defensive.

I can see you put a fair amount of time into this most recent post, and I appreciate your (mostly) civil tone and your logic. I'm happy to grant you the same civility. In order:
1. "Gathering specimens from all over the world and counting microfibers gives solid, objective data..." Gathering samples from all around the world is fraught unless you're extremely careful in your sample collection. There are a lot of ways for sample contamination to occur: were the jars completely clean? Did fibers from the sample collector's clothes make their way into the sample? What were the fibers actually made out of? (None of these questions are answered adequately in the paper. Read the actual paper and the experimental details yourself.) When you send out jars to a bunch of different people around the world, all of them using their own particular methods to collect the samples, it's exceedingly difficult to control the quality of your samples. When you further choose not to analyze the contents of the jars with any sort of modern analytical techniques, then I'm skeptical.
2. "The research journal is peer-reviewed..." Not all peer-reviewed journals have the same standards. Standards of scientific quality are measured many ways, one of which is impact factor. Roughly speaking, impact factor is a measure of how often that particular journal is cited in later research. Important, rigorous science is cited often (high impact factor), while poorly performed, meaningless science is rarely cited because it can't be trusted (low impact factor). Again, all of this is pretty easy for you to verify yourself.
3. "The second article in question was published on nature.com" The Nature publishing group publishes something like 150 journals (they all have web addresses that begin Nature.com/). The journal Nature is one journal out of those 150, and it happens to be one of the most highly regarded journals in current print. Its impact factor is 40. Nature Scientific Reports is a completely separate journal, even though it's owned by the Nature publishing group. Its impact factor is 4. That means it's very far from prestigious. Again, please look all of this up yourself. The fact that they're owned by the same publishing group does not mean they're of the same level of quality.
4. "To walk the walk, I challenge anyone to find any articles which state that fiber accumulation in marine life is debatable." Here you go. "Our results indicate, that pollution levels by microfibres have been overestimated and actual pollution levels may be many times lower."
5. "Here is an additional paper from the National Institute of Health..." This paper is NOT from the NIH. I'm sorry, you're mistaken. This paper is published in Science of the Total Environment, impact factor 3.9, by a group from the University of São Paulo, Brazil. The NIH compiles a searchable list of all published research called Pubmed. This is a searchable database that anyone can use. It's actually a pretty sweet service. But the NIH has nothing whatsoever to do with the articles they compile. They basically just provide the searchable list. What you've linked is the abstract, which is part of the searchable material within Pubmed.
6. "Here is a link to a major manufacturer..." Good for Patagonia. I applaud them for being proactive.

It's possible 'anthropogenic fibers' are accumulating in marine organisms. It's just that the evidence is thin. There's also little or no discussion of QUANTITY, and the identity of these fibers is left up to our imaginations. These are rather critical details. Finally, there's no mention of what impact any of this is having. More research can and should be done.

The title of this thread is 'Discard your fleece and synthetic clothing immediately.' The evidence that anyone's fleece and synthetic clothing is doing any harm at all is exceptionally thin or nonexistent. On the other hand, a large number of people discarding perfectly good clothing and buying something new creates a new resource burden with definitive negative environmental impact. That makes your advice quite poor and out of line with the ideals of conservation and environmental stewardship. Were that not the case, believe me, I wouldn't be spending my time arguing with you on this forum.
 
I'm doing my best to help you evaluate the quality of this science. I promise I'm qualified to do so. Being confused about what constitutes quality science is at least as common as getting surprised by the weather on top of Mt. Washington. You don't need to be so defensive.

Well, now I am pretty sure where the gap is. I mean, you have no idea of what I do and what engineering and scientific expertise I have, but offer to think for me. And you imply that all the research is done by confused hacks and incompetants, and therefore in poorly reviewed publications.

Gathering samples from all around the world is fraught unless you're extremely careful in your sample collection. There are a lot of ways for sample contamination to occur: were the jars completely clean?

Perhaps you should go and straighten these researchers out and tell them what they are doing wrong. There's no other way to put it...even the paper that you cited acknowledged that microfiber ingestion exists.

I suppose one could make an argument the fibers are of unknown origin, perhaps extraterrestrial, but I would check the lint filter of my dryer first.

Making attempts to obfuscate and distort measurements which have been replicated over and over, while claiming an unspecified, superior expertise in the subject, is just a tactic to preserve one's dignity.

I suggest that those who are interested consult the Patagonia link for updates on for updates. Its plainly stated, and Patagonia makes plenty of fleece products, and has little to gain by creating controversy.
 
Last edited:
Finally went back and read the original link.

Sensationalism, pure and simple, being used to market PolyGone's product.

No one has established harm. Think "Alar" for those who are old enough to remember that. The only harm done was to poor hard-working apple farmers. Same old same old.

Of course Patagonia agrees; it's part of their market position. They have a TON to lose if they don't appear "green" at every opportunity. Just like the folks at Sigg, after their bottles turned out to have BPA after all:

http://adage.com/article/news/marketing-news-sigg-damage-control/138712/
 
Finally went back and read the original link.

Sensationalism, pure and simple, being used to market PolyGone's product.

No one has established harm. Think "Alar" for those who are old enough to remember that. The only harm done was to poor hard-working apple farmers. Same old same old.

Of course Patagonia agrees; it's part of their market position. They have a TON to lose if they don't appear "green" at every opportunity. Just like the folks at Sigg, after their bottles turned out to have BPA after all:

http://adage.com/article/news/marketing-news-sigg-damage-control/138712/

Agreed.harm for fibers has not been established. Claims of harm from other plastics are based on the ability of some plastics to concentrate toxins...in this thread the effect on marine life has not even been discussed...
And no one brought up rugs and construction materials and the like..

But that's different from saying "Hey, the research is done by hacks and incompetents who don't clean their jars and cannot make it into 'real' research publications...

The purpose is to avoid generating any consideration because fiber ingestion by marine life is a fake output of bad science, and people are 'easily confused' by science "?like on Mount Washington'?.

Enough..more hiking...less internet.
 
Last edited:
Well, now...

Sweet straw men, bro.

So, did you read the info in the Patagonia link?

Copied and pasted directly from Patagonia:
"We’re taking a more active role in educating our customers about what we’ve learned so far about microfibers entering the ocean—and, most importantly, what they can do to help right now...Everything we buy comes at a cost to the environment."

Their number one suggestion:
"Keep Using It: Keeping our gear in use longer is something we can all do to reduce our personal impact on the planet. Buy only what you need, buy high quality and make it last."

This advice from Patagonia, the company you seem to be throwing in with pretty strongly, is the exact opposite of the advice you've given at the top of this thread. On the other hand, it's remarkably consistent with what I've written:
"Please DON'T discard your fleece and synthetic clothing immediately."
"A large number of people discarding perfectly good clothing and buying something new creates a new resource burden with definitive negative environmental impact."


Sure would be disappointing if you had to, like, agree with me or something. ;-)
 
Sweet straw men, bro.

So, did you read the info in the Patagonia link?

Copied and pasted directly from Patagonia:
"We’re taking a more active role in educating our customers about what we’ve learned so far about microfibers entering the ocean—and, most importantly, what they can do to help right now...Everything we buy comes at a cost to the environment."

Their number one suggestion:
"Keep Using It: Keeping our gear in use longer is something we can all do to reduce our personal impact on the planet. Buy only what you need, buy high quality and make it last."

This advice from Patagonia, the company you seem to be throwing in with pretty strongly, is the exact opposite of the advice you've given at the top of this thread. On the other hand, it's remarkably consistent with what I've written:
"Please DON'T discard your fleece and synthetic clothing immediately."
"A large number of people discarding perfectly good clothing and buying something new creates a new resource burden with definitive negative environmental impact."


Sure would be disappointing if you had to, like, agree with me or something. ;-)

People are not confused by science like on Mount Washington, there is no evidence that the research is false or performed by hacks or with contaminated jars, or that the publishers are low quality and that measurements are suspect.

Mission Accomplished.

The thread title came from the article, and a quick review if the thread shows I did not endorse that opinion.

If harm to the food chain is discovered, and if special interests or otherwise opinionated writers do not make false assertions, then the issue might be resolved by improved filtration technology.
 
The thread title came from the article, and a quick review if the thread shows I did not endorse that opinion.

The title is very misleading and inflammatory and I was ready to skip the thread entirely. I have no intention of discarding my fleece and such an about face on a product so long promoted with environmental promise strains the credibility of all such progress. Too bad you didn't select a title more appropriate to what's turned out to be mostly an intelligent discussion.
 
The title is very misleading and inflammatory and I was ready to skip the thread entirely. I have no intention of discarding my fleece and such an about face on a product so long promoted with environmental promise strains the credibility of all such progress. Too bad you didn't select a title more appropriate to what's turned out to be mostly an intelligent discussion.

As some of my trail condition reports from 2027 will attest, you only get one shot to get the title right (unless a mod fixes it). :)
 
Top