From: klier@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.sewing,rec.crafts.textiles
Subject: Re: Enviromentally-conscious sewing
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:43:50 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Sep28.151025.17710@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, rrah@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Runa Rahman) writes:
> I have always been a big fan of natural fibers because of their comfort,
> good looks, durability AND because they don't hurt the enviroment.
...
> I know synthetics are cheaper, strong and easy-care, but I think our earth 
> should take precedence over convenience and low prices (we can buy and use
> fewer clothes).  I hope to start a discussion here on the topic - any input
> from others?

Hi, Runa!  Let me play devil's advocate here.  I'm not about to give up
natural fibers, but a well-constructed synthetic garment may actually
put less of a strain on the earth.

Cotton is one of the most pesticide-intensive crops grown in the US.  Because
it requires LOTS of sunlight (cloudy days cut yields significantly), it is
also grown in arid and semi-arid climates.  That means it requires irrigation,
and irrigation contributes to aquifer depletion and/or river diversionary
projects.  Again, because of the high light requirements, cotton growers
need to keep the rows wide and the weeds down-- more herbicides, more
cultivation, more erosion, more water loss, more need for irrigation.

Ok, now you've got the cotton grown.  In ginning the cotton, short fibers
can be easily tossed into the air and contribute to lung disease in the
workers.  Ditto during weaving.  I believe that as of about 10 years ago,
there were NO mills in the US that were weaving all-cotton cloth -- mainly
because the OSHA guidelines on air-borne fibers made it cheaper to shift
the cloth production (and the industrial diseases) to another country with
less-strict laws.  We continued to knit cotton-- a process that puts fewer
fibers in the air.

Adding a bit of polyester to the cotton fibers does decrease the amount of
airborne particulates quite drastically.  It can also significantly strengthen
the fabric, making the garment last longer.  It can also cut down on ironing--
coal fired power plants have a much higher mortality and morbidity rate than
nuclear power plants do-- so anything that uses less electricity helps us
all out.

Linen tends to be a less environmentally damaging crop than cotton according
to my reading.  Don't have a good feel for silk production, but unless those
mulberry leaves are a real anomaly, the production of silkworm feed is also
associated with a certain amount of herbicide use.

Of course, there's the associated problems of bleaching and dyeing
fabrics -- dioxins and some carcinogens...

My choice has been to use classic styles and sturdy fabrics-- as sturdy as
I can come up with without compromising comfort too badly.  I'm never
fashionable, but I'm never utterly out of date.  Some of the clothes I
wore 20 years ago are still perfectly wearable.  A bulky wool and nylon 
blend turtleneck is still as good as the day it was made, for instance,
though the color has changed slightly over the years. 
> 
> Also, is there a knowledgeable person who could tell us about the biode-
> gradability and recycling possibilities for synthetic fibers used in
> yarn and fabric, like polyester, nylon, acetate, acrylic (I believe these
> are plastics?)?  I read of an English company that collects old sweaters
> and shreds them to make new yarn and sweaters - the best use for the the
> sythetics already made I can think of.

Polyester fiberfill (and presumably also polyester fabrics) can be made of
PET softdrink bottles.  I'm not sure PET bottles are the best choice
environmentally, but at least by turning them into fiberfill, we get one
more use before they are thrown out.

I also used to buy a heavy felt made of a number of recycled polyester, etc.,
fibers-- it was sold as shoe lining-- as blotters for herbarium specimens.
Haven't been able to locate a source recently.

As to biodegradability, you're right-- polyester, acetate, acrylic and
nylon are essentially non-degradable.  But NOTHING degrades in a landfill--
we've done an excellent job in making our dumps free of water and oxygen--
required for most rotting processes.  One "garbologist" says his prize
find was a container of guacamole, sandwiched between newspapers from one
week in 196x (1964???)-- still looked and smelled edible.  Likewise the
newspapers are readable, the hot dogs are recognizable-- the stuff we
throw away doesn't go away.

I think the one thing that I try to get across to the students in my
environmental science classes is the old saw about "Use it up, wear it
out.  Make it do or do without."

I'm sure not advocating the return of the cast-iron polyester pantsuit, but
I do think that changing our attitudes to "style" and "fashion" and being
willing to accept the slightly lesser comfort of 50-50 blends might go a
long ways towards getting us out of some of our current environmental mess.

Kay Klier   Biology Dept  UNI