Hooray natural fibers, and please don't eat the sheep

Wool and silk pass the test

Posted by Todd Hymas Samkara at 8:57 AM on 14 Jun 2006

Read more about: fashion | green living | food | agriculture

Vindication is a strange animal (like unto a marmot, or maybe an echidna) creeping up where one least expects it. Such as the BBC yesterday.

A fan, nay, a necessary devotee of natural-fiber clothing (see: Multiple Chemical Sensitivities), I often get flak from fellow outdoorspeople for outdoorsifying in non-synthetics. Especially so on high-altitude peaks in Colorado. But, newsflash, people: natural fibers like wool and silk, when worn correctly in layers, can hold up to just about everything synthetics can, even on Everest. Or on 14,000-foot peaks in the U.S. Or in the high Sierras.

Of course, no material is perfect -- super-wet conditions in bulky woolies, for example, often result in a seeming sheep's worth of extra weight -- but in mostly dryish mountain conditions, they're the mountain goat's pajamas.

Wearing replica gear made from gabardine, wool, cotton and silk, [mountaineer Graham Hoyland] wanted to disprove the common myth that the 1920s climbers were ill-equipped to reach the summit [of Mount Everest] ...
The three-year project, led by Professor Mary Rose and Mike Parsons, revealed that Mallory's clothing was highly effective at providing protection at high altitude.
The layered natural materials used to construct the garments were found to be excellent at trapping air next to the skin.
The outer layer of gabardine was hardwearing and water-resistant yet breathable. But the clothing was also lighter than modern gear -- the lightest ever to be used on Everest.

So, let us all praise wool (and other natural fibers)!

Here I'm compelled to make a public-service-like announcement that I feel even more justified in declaring, given recent developments: Please don't eat the sheep or goats!

Even aside from the deep respect sheep and goats deserve for all the wooliness they provide, it's also becoming an even worse dietary decision.

Meat-eaters have been told that avoiding mutton, goat, and some sausages is the only way to reduce the risks from a new animal brain disease.
Britain's food watchdog admitted yesterday that it could not rule out a risk to human health from the brain disease atypical scrapie, which is similar to BSE [mad cow disease].

The sheep and goats aren't just upset anymore, now they're getting mad!

For story: Hooray natural fibers, and please don't eat the sheep
5 Comments | Post a Comment

Some good related reading

I just finished reading "Endurance," by Alfred Lansing, which describes the epic journey of Ernest Shackleton and crew in their failed attempt to cross Antarctica in 1914. These guys spent two years in the most brutal conditions imaginable (bitter cold, blizzards, freezing rain, freezing ocean spray, you name it), and they survived just fine without synthetic clothes, sleeping bags, and other equipment.

Other proponents of natural fibers include Alexandra and Garret Conover, who have spent many years winter hiking and camping in Maine, Labrador, and the Arctic wearing natural materials -- even cotton! Their Snow Walker's Companion is worth reading.

by bhurley at 10:44 AM on 14 Jun 2006

"renaissance in mutton eating"?

What ever is Prince Charles thinking? When a titled personnage tries to get a "renaissance" going in this or that, it is usually in something rather more elevated than picking on the poor sheep.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 1:05 PM on 14 Jun 2006

This is a surprise?

Supposedly one of the early Arctic expeditions didn't go very well because they wore wool--but the answer was layered furs (like the locals), not then-non-existant synthetics.

Synthetic long underwear is bulkier, less warm, and retains body odor more than silk long underwear. It's also more expensive. Honestly, I've never heard outdoors people arguing against natural fibers, just against cotton, because it dries slowly and doesn't insulate well. I thought everyone knew that silk and wool were some of the best insulators (in the case of wool, even with a ridiculous amount of water absorption as well).

http://rosettastone.wordpress.com

by melissabarton at 8:24 PM on 14 Jun 2006

Problem

I was intrigued by gabardine. It seemed like the perfect material to wear when I need to ride in the rain. But then I found out it's usually dry-clean only.

So which is worse: A synthetic jacket that I wash normally, or a gabardine jacket that I have to dry clean?

by Icelander at 5:44 AM on 15 Jun 2006

well hold on

melissabarton wrote:
Synthetic long underwear is bulkier, less warm, and retains body odor more than silk long underwear.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I've owned both, and Patagonia silkweight capilene underwear doesn't retain body odor, is no bulkier, and is just as warm if not warmer than silk. And it lasts a lot longer -- I still have several silkweight capilene tops and bottoms that I bought in the late 1980s/early 1990s (whenever Patagonia first came out with silkweight) and they are just as good as new. The silk underwear I had back then is long gone, so in the long run I think synthetic may be cheaper because one pair will last you a good 20 years or more of hard use.

by bhurley at 5:54 AM on 15 Jun 2006

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.