See other Health Articles
Title: Top-brand coats 'contain harmful chemicals'
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.thelocal.de/society/2012 ... m_medium=email&utm_content=283
Published: Nov 5, 2012
Author: staff
Post Date: 2012-11-05 05:22:37 by Tatarewicz
Keywords: None
Views: 97
Comments: 3
Outdoor clothing from top manufacturers is frequently contaminated with chemicals that are harmful to health and the environment, Greenpeace warned on Monday. The environmental group said in a study that the materials that make many clothing items useful in wind, rain and snow are also toxic. "Images of pristine nature are often used for advertising outdoor clothing. But nature does not remain untouched by the chemicals in weather-resistant fabrics," it said. "All over the world, from secluded mountain lakes and Arctic polar ice to deep in the oceans, traces can be found of perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds (PFCs), pollutants with properties that are harmful to the environment and health." Greenpeace said it had tested 14 rain jackets and rain trousers for women and children from top brands such as German firms Jack Wolfskin, Adidas and Vaude, and American companies North Face, Marmot and Patagonia, for PFCs and found that each sample was contaminated. It said that some PFCs were known endocrine disruptors and harmful to the reproductive system. "Most brand name manufacturers use PFCs so that we stay dry in our outdoor wear, inside and outside," Greenpeace said. "But these man-made compounds of carbon and fluorine are so stable that they can hardly be removed from the environment, if at all." The group launched its international Detox campaign in 2011 calling on textile manufacturers to replace hazardous chemicals used in production with safe alternatives, and on governments to step up regulation. AFP/hc
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
zeddriver I want to see the evidence that a jacket has killed anyone. And of course your argument of switching to natural ways to protect one's self will fall flat if you talk to someone from PETA. I too want to be warned of dangers. "real dangers" Not theoretical ones. All one has to do is look at the wording in the statements of these organizations. If you see the words, Might, Possibly, could, Maybe, Given enough exposure, We think. All those are buzz words for we don't really know for sure. But we do want to scare you into backing up our agenda and ideology. I want facts backed up by science and studies that are peer reviewed. Greenpeace IS NOT an altruistic organization. As a former member of the Sierra club. I can state from personal experience that their over all agenda is about anti capitalism. They want every aspect of your life managed by the government (and themselves). But they sugar coat it by talking about saving you and the world from "you". All that is required is for you to hand your life over to them. I remember the saccharin artificial sweetener scare in the 1970's. Health organizations were up in arms over the "possible" (key word is possible) threat of it causing cancer. But. Upon further review. It was found that the saccharin cancer they saw in mice was cause by "large amounts" of saccharin. To put it into perspective. For a human to eat the same amount of saccharin they gave to the mice to cause cancer. A person would have had to drink a "minimum" of 2 24 can cases where each can had 12oz. of saccharin sweetened cola per day for years on end. That would equal 4.5 gallons (17 litres) of cola per day. Even then it was deemed that consuming that much just "might possibly" cause cancer. In the end it was junk science. But that sure didn't prevent the government from banning it. Of course several decades went by. Then the government reversed it self and said it should have never banned it. The same has been said of coffee. On group says it will kill you. Another says it will help you. And that's what I don't like about these "groups" that claim they are only looking out for us. Again. Show me the facts. Not theories based on a preconceived agenda.
Greenpeace would have attempted to stopped Charles Lindbergh from flying across the Atlantic and Robert Byrd from exploring the polar regions if they had existed way back when.
#2. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
(Edited)
-Alex Kurtagic
#3. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
glad I don't wear coats.
Does anyone honestly believe that the global elites whose wealth and power depend on manipulation of the global chess board would leave something like the Presidency up to chance?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest