this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
145 points (90.5% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5307 readers
7 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!

RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith

Related communities:

Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
theloneforager@lemmy.ml
Chloe@lemmy.ml
145
Laundry is a top source of microplastic pollution—here's how to clean your clothes more sustainably (theconversation.com)
submitted 9 months ago by GreyShuck@feddit.uk to c/green@lemmy.ml
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The most common microplastics in the environment are microfibers—plastic fragments shaped like tiny threads or filaments. Microfibers come from many sources, including cigarette butts, fishing nets and ropes, but the biggest source is synthetic fabrics, which constantly shed them.

Textiles shed microfibers while they are manufactured, worn and disposed of, but especially when they are washed. A single wash load can release several million microfibers. Many factors affect how many fibers are released, including fabric type, mechanical action, detergents, temperature and the duration of the wash cycle.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lemonparty@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

You not believing it doesn't make it untrue. Where do you shop? What do you buy? Find me a reputable store that doesn't carry non-blend fabrics, and I'll find you one around the same price point that does. Nobody suggested you had to go to Old Navy, in fact I used it to demonstrate that even cheap places (Old Navy is all about cheap) have non synthetic options. They're a baseline that holds true as you advance to just about every price point.

[–] ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Like the joke about the airplane their point was clearly over your head. ✈️🤣

[–] Lemonparty@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There are no points on a circle my friend.

[–] ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wow, you like being wrong huh? A circle is defined in mathematics as a type of line which is composed of infinite number of points that are equidistant from a given point.

[–] Lemonparty@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Omg not semantics, anything but semantics

[–] ShoeboxKiller@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Pedantics, actually. Much like this comment. Semantics would be applicable if you weren’t trying to be superior by dropping a single ambiguous sentence.

Since you left the meaning of your comment ambiguous I interpreted it as your lack of understanding what the mathematical definition of a circle is.

Based on the comment thread it seems like you need all the help you can get. I hope you find it!

[–] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You not believing it doesn't make it untrue.

It does not, we’re both sharing anecdotal information.

Where do you shop? What do you buy?

I don’t buy a lot of clothes now, most of my clothing is several years old at least. I buy what feels comfortable, that I like the look/design of and that seems to be well made.

Find me a reputable store that doesn't carry non-blend fabrics, and I'll find you one around the same price point that does.

I never said d stores don’t carry non-blend fabric clothing, simply that disadvantaged portions of the population often don’t have the luxury of choice others do and that they are stuck in a system designed to keep it that way.

Nobody suggested you had to go to Old Navy, in fact I used it to demonstrate that even cheap places (Old Navy is all about cheap) have non synthetic options.

You did not, and I never said you did. I pointed out that the cheap example you used was fast fashion, which many cheap stores are. Which was an ironic choice on your part because fast fashion could be a poster child for the boots theory.

They're a baseline that holds true as you advance to just about every price point.

Yeah, I saw your other examples of places like Patagonia which, again, is ironic because that could be the other side of the boots theory representing what “rich” people would buy.

It’s like you didn’t even read what I posted originally. I think you should check your privilege.

[–] Lemonparty@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

we’re both sharing anecdotal information.

We are not, yours in anecdotal, mine can be verified and duplicated.

disadvantaged portions of the population often don’t have the luxury of choice others do and that they are stuck in a system designed to keep it that way.

And I pointed out that every price point has these options, and offered to demonstrate it. Again not anecdotal. Unless you cannot buy clothes at all, this is not an honest assessment. You "don't believe it", but it is true. If you cannot afford to buy clothing at all, this entire thread doesn't apply to you.

Yeah, I saw your other examples of places like Patagonia which, again, is ironic

That is not what irony means. Saying that a brand where the average price of a new item is $20, and a brand where the average price is over $100 both have single fabric options is not ironic. It's data validation.

You're complaining to complain and/or arguing to argue.

[–] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You're complaining to complain and/or arguing to argue.

No, I was engaging you comment to point out your singular perspective and privilege and now you’re upset about it.

I’m done now though. You’re either a corporate shill who’s literally doing what the original commenter stated or someone who just has this need to feel superior. Either way I’ve spent enough of my time on you.